Today was my day off, and so I followed a tangent all day. In Thor BASHES another religion! I noticed the discussion between Tom and rivka about the headscarf requirement in Islam. This led me to the very old thread on sake about Tom's view that "modesty" is not particularly a virtue. My primary association with the word "modesty" growing up was entirely based on what clothing you wore. As a child, several things I wore to church without any kind of thought were criticized to my mother as "immodest." In particular, I remember one high square-necked sun-dress that had two-inch thick straps and no sleeves, and which, as a result, I had to wear covered by a sweater from then on out.
I did a search, curious to see what would come up for the word "modesty."
The first thing (after wikipedia and dictionary.com) that came up was a website containing a rather extensive survey of Christian guys about what they considered to be "stumbling blocks" if a girl wore them. The next few things were from a "modesty heartcheck."
I haven't given much thought to my upbringing vis-a-vis my body issues in a long time, but these sorts of pages seem so guilt-inducing and hysterical that I can't help but feel that no girl they're aimed at could ever escape with anything resembling a healthy view of her body or human sexuality. They seem to view women as either good Christians, inadvertent temptresses or on-purpose temptresses and explicitly write about guys "sinning by looking at them."
For example:
quote:Kevin: “Each and every day is a battle—a battle against my sin, a battle against temptation, a battle against my depraved mind. Every morning I have to cry out for mercy, strength, and a renewed conviction to flee youthful lusts. The Spirit is faithful to bring me the renewal I need to prepare me to do war against my sin, yet the temptation still exists.
Sometimes, when I see a girl provocatively dressed, I’ll say to myself, ‘She probably doesn’t know that a hundred and one guys are going to devour her in their minds today. But then again, maybe she does.’ To be honest, I don’t know the truth—the truth of why she chooses to dress the way she does. All I know is that the way she presents herself to the world is bait for my sinful mind to latch onto and I need to avoid it at all costs.
Or this quote from the modesty survey in answer to the question of whether a bikini is immodest:
quote:If you don't understand this, you need to start at square one. The more skin that is revealed, the more of a stumbling block. You can't reveal more skin than with a bikini. If you understood the purpose of publications like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, or the objectification of swimsuit and lingerie models, you wouldn't want to wear a bikini -- unless you actually want men to sin as they look at you.
Apparently even bending over the wrong way to pick something up is immodest:
quote:Girls: Please don't bend over towards us, or away from us. Please kneel down, or modestly crouch if you need to reach something. Bending reveals an attitude of carelessness and hastiness. A girl who makes the effort to kneel to attend to something draws good attention to herself because it shows her careful, and sincere attention to what she is doing.
Am I the only person to find the existence of this survey inappropriate? I honestly can't think of any similar aspect of a guy's self-expression where they would ask young women to judge them with this level of harshness or detail. It just seems to put such a load of guilt on young girls, to make them feel responsible for something that they actually have little control over. A girl, trying to fit into all these strictures of what is "modest" or not could never again just behave naturally. Am I the only one who finds this to be rather repellent?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yeah, I feel the same way. It's pretty horrible. I think it's never okay to make someone (e.g. a girl) responsible for what goes on in someone else's (e.g. a guy's) mind.
I think of the time in our society when it was not okay for a woman to wear pants, or to show an ankle or wrist. The brave ladies who defied conventional ideas of modesty are the ones who won for me the right to dress in a way that lets me (for instance) do my job. It's a huge freedom issue, and we should honor the women who won this freedom for us.
So I honor those today, as well, who push the bounds of what's considered modest for our time. I'm glad they're comfortable with their bodies, and don't feel they have to hide themselves away for fear of what someone else might be thinking.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
There is such a concept as not placing a stumbling block in front of a blind man.
I agree that there are degrees to which that line is drawn, but the concept certainly exists. I mean it all depends on your values and a community of shared values.
I come from a community where everyone agrees that premarital sex is wrong, and sex outside of your your relationship with your spouse is wrong. Additionally, lusting is wrong.
If a woman has the word "Juicy" written on her, it calls attention to her. If she is wearing tight or revealing clothing it draws attention to her. If a guy is walking around without a shirt, it calls attention to him as well.
If we stipulate that men have a larger sexual drive than women do, then say you are in a community of such shared values - it would be insensitive for one to dress immodestly. In my community, both men and women have modesty laws. Granted, the laws for women are more constricting than for men, but I don't think the women feel guilty.
There are people here who can speak about this more knowledgeably than I, pretty much because I'm not a female, but the reasons for modesty in my community are not only tolerated, but are generally held in high esteem.
Women and girls still dress to look pretty - but they dress in a way that doesn't make a guy leer at them as they walk by.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
That's part of the problem right there. Women don't have the power to make a guy leer at them. Or to not leer at them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True. But the way they dress can certainly encourage it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That wasn't my point. My point was that they can certainly prevent a guy from leering at them. And if they can, and if they share the same values, is it not sensitive of her to dress modestly?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I never had a body for revealing clothes, and I knew it and never wore any. That did not stop me from being leered at. I do not think that a girl can prevent people from leering at her.
Certainly she can dress in such a way as to discourage leering, but she cannot entirely prevent it.
And it still seems to me to be hugely hard on girls to have a site that dissects all her clothing and many of her behavior choices and which then claims that she can cause men to sin just to look at her.
And it doesn't seem to do any more favors to men to present them as lustful beasts who are constantly battling the horrific temptations of having physical bodies.
Edit: I don't understand the potential benefit to this guilt-mongering.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Hmm. "Please confine your actions and activities to ones that I find non-provocative."
And please wear low-heeled, completely closed boots, because you never know who might be a foot-fetishist.
Dye your hair a nice neutral color; I have a thing for blondes.
Wear a long skirt. No, that shows too much. Wear pants. No, wait, I'm seeing the shape of your legs. AGH! Wear MC Hammer pants! And three layers of petticoats! Thank you!
I think I'll go out on a limb here and push past "find this to be a little repellant" to "these people are idiots." I mean, yes, you may have a right to impose certain standards on your community, so long as being part of that community is utterly voluntary, there are viable alternatives available, and you can leave at any time. (And you recognize that the standards of that community do not necessarily extend beyond it.) But by and large, I tend to think we do a lot better when we limit the number of standards we decide to inflict on others, mostly to those that actively harm others if they're breached. Discovering you're actually kind of a horndog doesn't fit my definition of "active harm".
But I must give one corollary. No one deserves to be harrassed or assaulted on the basis of what they wear. But I think we could do without people wearing tight or revealing clothing or emblems/signs/cartoons/phrases on their shirts getting huffy about the fact that people are looking at their bodies. If you have the freedom to show it off, other people have the freedom to look at it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I haven't given much thought to my upbringing vis-a-vis my body issues in a long time, but these sorts of pages seem so guilt-inducing and hysterical that I can't help but feel that no girl they're aimed at could ever escape with anything resembling a healthy view of her body or human sexuality. They seem to view women as either good Christians, inadvertent temptresses or on-purpose temptresses and explicitly write about guys "sinning by looking at them."
conservative religious sexuality is bewilderingly odd and backwards to your average american teen, and it's also largely being thrown to the wayside. no-sex-until-marriage is fading away fast.
I'm not going to be too sad to see it go.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If we stipulate that men have a larger sexual drive than women do
I'm not willing to grant that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
A degree of modesty is kinda nice. Leaving a few features to the imagination can make certain situations a bit more fun.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If we stipulate that men have a larger sexual drive than women do
I'm not willing to grant that.
Actually, neither am I.
I would, however, stipulate that on average, men are more visually stimulated than women.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Hmm. "Please confine your actions and activities to ones that I find non-provocative."
And please wear low-heeled, completely closed boots, because you never know who might be a foot-fetishist.
Dye your hair a nice neutral color; I have a thing for blondes.
Wear a long skirt. No, that shows too much. Wear pants. No, wait, I'm seeing the shape of your legs. AGH! Wear MC Hammer pants! And three layers of petticoats! Thank you!
I think I'll go out on a limb here and push past "find this to be a little repellant" to "these people are idiots." I mean, yes, you may have a right to impose certain standards on your community, so long as being part of that community is utterly voluntary, there are viable alternatives available, and you can leave at any time. (And you recognize that the standards of that community do not necessarily extend beyond it.) But by and large, I tend to think we do a lot better when we limit the number of standards we decide to inflict on others, mostly to those that actively harm others if they're breached. Discovering you're actually kind of a horndog doesn't fit my definition of "active harm".
But I must give one corollary. No one deserves to be harrassed or assaulted on the basis of what they wear. But I think we could do without people wearing tight or revealing clothing or emblems/signs/cartoons/phrases on their shirts getting huffy about the fact that people are looking at their bodies. If you have the freedom to show it off, other people have the freedom to look at it.
I agree completely with both these points.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think men benefit just as much from dressing modestly as women do. I think for me, dressing modestly is less about not inciting others to lust, and more about showing that I adhere to a certain standard of conduct and place myself apart from those who do not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well said. (To me, that is only one of several facets, but it is an important one.)
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Kq, or others, what sort of get-up would be considered immodest on a man? The closest I can think of is guys who shamelessly flaunt their bodies by going shirtless when a shirt would really probably be more normal.
I think the parallel just doesn't exist very much, but that being said I think a parallel that does exist is dressing properly or professionally. For example: wearing a hoody as opposed to wearing a suit. I think the modesty stays the same but the amount of respect and regard that is assumed toward you increases dramatically.
Anyway. That site is absurd. Some of the questions they have answers to are so pre-supposing I don't think I'd be able to answer them. Crazy.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Perhaps there are a few categories:
- Avoids provocative dress because of personal standards - Avoids provocative dress to avoid pushing the buttons of the poor lust-bot boys -Innocently inspires lust -Knowingly inspires lust, but is OK with that -Knowingly inspires lust, believes lust is wrong -Gets huffy about inspired lust
Only the last two seem to me to be appropriate target for "what are you doing to the poor boys!" judgment.
Comments about how you bend over are ridiculous. Either avert your damn gaze or accept responsibility for feelings aroused by what you're looking at.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The problem is the idiotic notion that it's wrong to have sexual thoughts. None of us would be alive today if our parents and every generation before them didn't have overwhelming sexual desires.
It's simply a means of controlling people by convincing them that they and their thoughts are inherently bad, and that the most natural things are unnatural.
The horrible irony is that these attempts to "control the lusts" and other such nonsense actually create the unhealthy gender roles and emotional trauma linked to sexuality that they claim to be fighting against.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The horrible irony is that these attempts to "control the lusts" and other such nonsense actually create the unhealthy gender roles and emotional trauma linked to sexuality that they claim to be fighting against.
QFT
...
My opinion is pretty simple, as long as you're not indecent (nude in public, or scantily clad in inappropriate situations. Say... a bikini or swimsuit in a funeral.), whatever you wear is your choice. If you personally wish to adhere to some standard of modesty, that's fine. If you don't, that's all right as well. But I don't like the idea of other people trying to enforce their standards of 'modesty' on others for the reason I quoted from MightyCow.
I only have two points on this in general.
1. If you dress provocatively, you should expect more leers and not get in a huff when you do.
2. That is not to say that someone dressing provocatively excuses other people from their actions. (Cat-calling, assault, sexual-abuse, etc.)
Edit: In re-reading my post I realized a somewhat subtle contradiction in my two points which is that leering is an action taken by a person. For reasons I can't really provide a good grounds for, I would argue that leering is an expected result to provocative dress regardless of who's wearing it. Things that go beyond that (cat-calling, assault, abuse, etc.) crosses a line that is unacceptable and not excusable.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Kq, or others, what sort of get-up would be considered immodest on a man?
While I'm sure there are others, some that come to mind are:
-Shirtlessness (I'm okay with it when, say, swimming. Other than that, I consider it less than modest.) -Extremely tight-fitted clothing -The guy I saw in the library once who was wearing his short swim trunks and, um, hanging out -The guys at the beach who run around in thongs-- really I'd consider longer shorts on men to be more modest. -Sleeveless shirts
I should add that I see both men and women in immodest (by my standards) clothing every day, but do not condemn them, because quite obviously they do not live by the same standards I do. Some things are only "sinful" if you have committed not to do them and are breaking that committment, IMO. My personal choice, and my husband's, and our choice for our family, is to dress modestly, by our standards, for our reasons. I am aware that in some circles/parts of the world/societies, what we wear would be immodest too.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Comments about how you bend over are ridiculous.
I disagree. If I stick my hind end up in the air, that's an eye catcher I don't want you staring at. If I lean down so everything in the front is hanging out, that's more than I want you to see.
Since I'm the one who's uncomfortable with you looking at my bits, I'm ok with taking responsibility for how I bend over. I bend at the knees while keeping my torso mostly upright. (It helps to put one foot slightly behind the other and turned at a 45 degree angle.) Yes, a guy can still look down my shirt if he tries. But at 5'4", there's a decent chance he can do that anyway.
I'm going to take a middle path with this one. It's more polite to not put everything on display and to wear what's generally considered appropriate for the occasion. I'm still a big fan of individual expression, just within some boundaries.
However, these guys seem to have forgotten their Paul. It's bad to cause others to sin if you do it knowingly. Therefore, if my friend confides in me that he thinks lustful thoughts about a particular body part or outfit of mine and I flaunt it in front of him, then I'm sinning.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't dress overly immodestly but I wouldn't say I dress particularly modestly either. I dress in a way that I feel is appropriate to the situation. If I dress in a way usually interpreted as provoking, I will not be surprised if I get a response.
However, as many of the women above, what you are wearing often has very little to do with how much you are being leered at. It's more to do with the discreetness of the guys in question.
I love the survey. It works both ways.
Also: I love the comments more than anything. Poor guys. Obviously there needs to be one about guys.
Suits: Dressing like James Bond is a problem because James Bond is quite sexy and therefore wearing a suit is a huge stumbling block.
Ties: Ties make guys look respectable and respectability is often attractive. Therefore, wearing a tie is a stumbling block.
etc.
EDIT #2: I bet that if you collated this all together you would end up with something akin to modern highly modest clothing requirements.
If there was any question who drives the clothing in religions, this survey provides the answers.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: Comments about how you bend over are ridiculous.
I disagree. If I stick my hind end up in the air, that's an eye catcher I don't want you staring at. If I lean down so everything in the front is hanging out, that's more than I want you to see.
Since I'm the one who's uncomfortable with you looking at my bits, I'm ok with taking responsibility for how I bend over. I bend at the knees while keeping my torso mostly upright. (It helps to put one foot slightly behind the other and turned at a 45 degree angle.) Yes, a guy can still look down my shirt if he tries. But at 5'4", there's a decent chance he can do that anyway.
I don't think what you're doing is ridiculous. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: If there was any question who drives the clothing in religions, this survey provides the answers.
Really? Because I know several trends towards more (and even in my opinion, excessively so) modest clothing that are exclusively driven by women. In the case of one particular trend in certain segments of Israeli society, in spite of protest from husbands (and rabbis).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The problem is the idiotic notion that it's wrong to have sexual thoughts. None of us would be alive today if our parents and every generation before them didn't have overwhelming sexual desires.
It's simply a means of controlling people by convincing them that they and their thoughts are inherently bad, and that the most natural things are unnatural.
The horrible irony is that these attempts to "control the lusts" and other such nonsense actually create the unhealthy gender roles and emotional trauma linked to sexuality that they claim to be fighting against.
I think we would be much healthier as human beings if, instead of trying to suppress normal, healthy sexual feelings and beating ourselves up when we can't, we would learn to cope with our feelings and control our behaviour.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, perhaps I was overhasty in making such a sweeping judgement. Clothing can be a political statement, too, and one of power in both directions.
That said, I do think that it is revealing (no pun intended) what these boys and men come out with on the survey. Nothing is particularly different from what you'd expect from the history of clothing in monotheistic society.
I have a related question for the men, though. If you see a modestly dressed woman who you are attracted to does she provoke fewer sexual thoughts (and more chaste ones) than an immodestly dressed woman, or do you simply categorize those thoughts as less immoral?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: If there was any question who drives the clothing in religions, this survey provides the answers.
Really? Because I know several trends towards more (and even in my opinion, excessively so) modest clothing that are exclusively driven by women. In the case of one particular trend in certain segments of Israeli society, in spite of protest from husbands (and rabbis).
Yeah, it isn't completely cut and dried. Often, when there is a group that is oppressed, there are often members of a group that will actively work to maintain the oppression of that group (Phyllis Schlafly leaps to mind as an American example). The reasons for this are probably fairly varied. I've never studied it, but I can think of a couple off of the top of my head that sound like plausible motivations for the behavior. Despite the fact that it happens, these figures can't accurately be said to be the driving force behind pushing their group into second class citizen status. They're a product of the system rather than a cause of it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:The Spirit is faithful to bring me the renewal I need to prepare me to do war against my sin, yet the temptation still exists.
Ah, religion: doing nothing for everyone since long before you were born.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If we stipulate that men have a larger sexual drive than women do
I'm not willing to grant that.
Actually, neither am I.
I would, however, stipulate that on average, men are more visually stimulated than women.
I seem to remember studies that measured physiological response that correlates with sexual arousal of men and women who were shown flims of people having sex revealing that while the women reported a lesser degree of arousal than men, their physiological responses suggested that this was not the case. It would have been the early to mid '90s when I read the studies, though, and I'm fuzzy on the details. Anybody up to date on the research on this topic?
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:The Spirit is faithful to bring me the renewal I need to prepare me to do war against my sin, yet the temptation still exists.
Ah, religion: doing nothing for everyone since long before you were born.
I have strong feelings for you, Dude. Modesty? It's overrated. Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
heathen!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was actually looking for some sort of double blind study on viewing blondes as more attractive. I vaguely remember it being out there somewhere.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
It seems that the problem (at least with the guys from the survey) is that they have no way they can possibly avoid what they think is immodest. It reminds me of a joke/game my friend always says. " if you think of your mother naked you go to hell"
It's horrible, but with that thought in your mind theres no way you can't briefly think about it. And there is no way those guys could not think about some one immodestly, although i think they should just make allowanes and not try tostop women form leaning over.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
There is a huge difference between lust and thinking a girl is pretty. Just because there is a bunch of creepy people who would lust over the very existence of a woman doesn't mean everyone is creepy. However, the human body is by nature made for sexual arousal. As was said, that is what makes babies possible. To dress or even act a particular way ends up saying, if you want it to or not, have sex with me. On the other hand, the idea of modesty is have respect for me as a person and not as a body.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I have a related question for the men, though. If you see a modestly dressed woman who you are attracted to does she provoke fewer sexual thoughts (and more chaste ones) than an immodestly dressed woman, or do you simply categorize those thoughts as less immoral?
Yes, speaking for myself, fewer sexual thoughts.
However, the second part of your question is confusing. "do you simply categorize those thoughts as less immoral?" What thoughts? Attraction? Someone who finds "sexual thoughts" immoral probably doesn't find attraction to be immoral, if that's what you're asking.
I'm just more likely to think about specific body parts, and related activities, if those body parts are on display. However, I think this is very much dependent on context. The fact that certain cultures can make a big deal of an exposed ankle shows, I think, that the sexual thoughts are more or less a constant, and the triggers are what vary. If I found myself on a desert island alone with a bunch of habit-clad nuns, I'm pretty sure I'd start thinking naughty things about the nuns before very long.
On the other hand if I was stranded in a nudist colony I think I'd reach a point where just seeing a lot of flesh wasn't particularly inspiring.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, dressing a certain way says "have sex with me; don't respect me as a person?"
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tom, who are you asking?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Occ, sorry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: If there was any question who drives the clothing in religions, this survey provides the answers.
Really? Because I know several trends towards more (and even in my opinion, excessively so) modest clothing that are exclusively driven by women. In the case of one particular trend in certain segments of Israeli society, in spite of protest from husbands (and rabbis).
Yeah, it isn't completely cut and dried. Often, when there is a group that is oppressed, there are often members of a group that will actively work to maintain the oppression of that group (Phyllis Schlafly leaps to mind as an American example). The reasons for this are probably fairly varied. I've never studied it, but I can think of a couple off of the top of my head that sound like plausible motivations for the behavior. Despite the fact that it happens, these figures can't accurately be said to be the driving force behind pushing their group into second class citizen status. They're a product of the system rather than a cause of it.
*sigh* Since I definitely don't consider modesty rules "oppression" (in general; specific cases might qualify), nor do I consider women second class citizens, I object to you using my post as a basis for yours.
In addition to disagreeing with its substance.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
My dad once told me that the way I dressed would influence who was attracted to me. I've found this to be mostly true- the way you dress DOES say something about you- your values, your commitments, even. For example, if I show up to a job interview wearing torn, muddy jeans and a ripped t-shirt, that's going to tell that employer that I care nothing about my appearance and probably won't care much about the job. Same as showing up with my uniform wrinkled and dirty- it's a reflection on you to the customers or the people you're working with.
I don't want the first thing someone thinks about me to be "Wow, she's hot, I'd totally hit that." There's a difference, to me, in the above statement, and "hey, she's really pretty." And the way I dress can influence that, in my experience.
The way I dress is primarily based on what I'M comfortable exposing. I don't wear shorts, for example, unless I'm doing something like working out in the summer outside. I wear jeans in the summer, but that's because I just... don't like showing my legs. No reason for it, I just don't. Same with tank tops- I rarely wear them, because my bust is such that I inadvertently expose parts of me that I'm not comfortable exposing if I move my arms certain ways.
Personally, I've never attended a church where they told us exactly what to wear, down to the details. They asked for certain things in certain situations- one piece bathing suits for girls, and t-shirts and swim trunks for guys at church camp, for example- but as long as we weren't dressing in order to deliberately provoke sexual stimulation in those around us, we could wear what we wanted.
Granted, this is just my limited experience. But I thought I'd share.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
There's a reason wearing few clothes is called "provocative." It provokes a reaction. Just because some guys can leer and lust without being provoked doesn't disprove the fact that some guys really only do it because they're provoked.
And placing the blame for the leering (which I am not defending!) solely on the guy is like placing the blame for a fistfight solely on the one to throw the first punch... even though the other guy provoked it by threatening and abusive behavior.
Yes, men are responsible for how they react to stimuli. But women are responsible for providing stimuli when it is easily foreseeable it's going to cause such reaction? Especially when the reaction is basically biologically based?
Assuming it were legal for women to walk around completely nude, would the responsibility for mens' subsequent reactions to such be completely on the mens' shoulders? Or might women be contributing to it? If so, then surely there is some reasonable middle ground between full nudity and being fully covered head to toe.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: But women are responsible for providing stimuli when it is easily foreseeable it's going to cause such reaction? Especially when the reaction is basically biologically based?
Because, of course, in every culture known, men react to bare breasts or other such "stimuli" by be sexually aroused?
Right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Assuming it were legal for women to walk around completely nude, would the responsibility for mens' subsequent reactions to such be completely on the mens' shoulders?
I would expect the responsibility to be completely on male shoulders, yes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
Assuming it were legal for women to walk around completely nude, would the responsibility for mens' subsequent reactions to such be completely on the mens' shoulders?
Their reaction? No. Their actions? Yes, absolutely.
Or, as my pcc professor put it, "If an extremely attractive person of the gender and sexual orientation compatible to your own walks into your office, strips off their clothes, gets up on your desk and does a little dance and then falls into your lap it's still your responsibility to say no."
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Assuming it were legal for women to walk around completely nude, would the responsibility for mens' subsequent reactions to such be completely on the mens' shoulders?
Yes.
I actually think it ridiculous that our government tells us that in order to leave our homes, we have to have certain body parts covered. Especially the double standard of women needing their chests covered when men do not. I believe NY's supreme court ruled that a woman can be topless anywhere a man is allowed to be topless. I couldn't agree with that decision more.
If a woman goes into public naked in a society that legally allows such a thing, then guys are free to look all they want. Harassing such a woman (or worse) would be just as wrong then as it is if the woman is in a burka. What a woman wears does not affect her rights in any way that I can conceive of.
[ January 06, 2009, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: If there was any question who drives the clothing in religions, this survey provides the answers.
Really? Because I know several trends towards more (and even in my opinion, excessively so) modest clothing that are exclusively driven by women. In the case of one particular trend in certain segments of Israeli society, in spite of protest from husbands (and rabbis).
Yeah, it isn't completely cut and dried. Often, when there is a group that is oppressed, there are often members of a group that will actively work to maintain the oppression of that group (Phyllis Schlafly leaps to mind as an American example). The reasons for this are probably fairly varied. I've never studied it, but I can think of a couple off of the top of my head that sound like plausible motivations for the behavior. Despite the fact that it happens, these figures can't accurately be said to be the driving force behind pushing their group into second class citizen status. They're a product of the system rather than a cause of it.
*sigh* Since I definitely don't consider modesty rules "oppression" (in general; specific cases might qualify), nor do I consider women second class citizens, I object to you using my post as a basis for yours.
In addition to disagreeing with its substance.
I didn't intend for my post be be based on yours; I was conceiving of it as being more of a response. In any case, I apologize for any offense given. My post was a bit disjointed, because I was writing it while taking care of work stuff, so a)the writing in it is embarassingly bad, and b)I realize in rereading it that I failed to include something in it saying that I didn't know enough about the situation that you were talking about to know whether I would consider societal enforcement of the restrictions you were talking about oppressive or not. I don't consider the mode of dress that you adhere to oppressive, and I don't have the feeling that women in Orthodox Judaism are considered second class citizens, just to be absolutely clear on the subject.
Now, I do think that the imposition of headscarves and chador on women in Iran constitutes oppressive behavior, and I think that the imposition of this mode of dress as a requirement in the 70s is was part of an effort to force women back into second class citizen status in that country.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Or, as my pcc professor put it, "If an extremely attractive person of the gender and sexual orientation compatible to your own walks into your office, strips off their clothes, gets up on your desk and does a little dance and then falls into your lap it's still your responsibility to say no."
Absolutely.
But blame is not a zero-sum game, and the woman in this case would not be blameless, regardless of the man's subsequent actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There were reports of fanatical "modesty patrols" responsible for several incidents of beating and vandalism in Jersualem late last year, too. Anywhere you find the concept of "modesty," you'll eventually find some form of retribution taken against the "immodest."
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Let's turn it around. Instead of sexual arousal, let's use disgust. If a man walks around naked, his junk swinging in the wind (but not directed at anyone) and a woman finds it disgusting and offensive, instead of arousing, that's just her problem, right? He's not responsible at all for her reaction? So if she makes a face or says "Eww!" then she's wrong for displaying her disgust, right?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is from what some of the young men said on the Modesty survey.
I noticed that sexual arousal is a big problem, but (according to what some of these young men say) it's only a problem outside of marriage. The chastity and modesty of girls only applies outside of marriage. Their sexuality must stay hidden until their partner is chosen.
To me, this can be interpreted in a negative way. It sounds as if the sexuality of girls and women is not hers to give away (or not) and belongs instead to a future husband (wherever he may be).
The fact that this modesty survey only goes the one way suggests that this kind of sexuality with a "reserved" sign on it equally only goes one way. This may not practically be the case in modern society, but if modesty is such a big deal and this is a modern site, why isn't there a male-questions-for-females portion of the survey? (Or am I missing it?)
Is the only reason for modesty to save young men from poor upbringings?
In certain societies where women follow many rules and men only a few, there is a behavior divide as well. Women are demure and studious, men out of control of their sexuality as well as their aggression. As a result, not only do men have the power, they are unequipped to have it-- not because they are male but because they have been brought up in this way.
If you have a society where women are covered entirely and men are still catcalling and leering, it is not because the men are so lusty that they can't control themselves (and thus requiring MORE controls on the women until they disappear altogether) it's because nobody has thought to bring the men up in a way to have them treat women in a respectful way.
Obviously, there are also societies where, despite differing rules (perhaps more equal ones), men are still brought up to be highly respectful (not worshipful-- HUGE difference) of women as people. In this case, although there may be what seem to me like unnecessary modesty rules, neither sex entirely dominates the other and no slippery slope is embarked upon where the more out of control the men are the more rules are imposed on the opposite sex in order to curtail the male behavior.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Let's turn it around. Instead of sexual arousal, let's use disgust. If a man walks around naked, his junk swinging in the wind (but not directed at anyone) and a woman finds it disgusting and offensive, instead of arousing, that's just her problem, right?
For the most part, yeah.
It's pretty clear that a lot of the commenters on this thread haven't hung around beaches in Europe much.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There were reports of fanatical "modesty patrols" responsible for several incidents of beating and vandalism in Jersualem late last year, too.
That sort of behavior I would certainly categorize as oppressive.
Rivka, what do you think?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
For the last three posts I have made (one here, one on the Marriage/Religion thread) I have been the last person to post on each page.
COINCIDENCE?
I think so.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: To me, this can be interpreted in a negative way. It sounds as if the sexuality of girls and women is not hers to give away (or not) and belongs instead to a future husband (wherever he may be).
Your interpretation is exactly consistent with what I have heard taught in conservative Christian circles.
I have at least heard it go both ways that a man having premarital sex is defrauding his future wife as much as the wife defrauding the future husband. But the onus does seem to end up on the women.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Let's turn it around. Instead of sexual arousal, let's use disgust. If a man walks around naked, his junk swinging in the wind (but not directed at anyone) and a woman finds it disgusting and offensive, instead of arousing, that's just her problem, right?
Yes.
quote:He's not responsible at all for her reaction?
Not sure what "reaction" we are talking about here that he needs to claim responsibility for. I'd imagine it would typically involve looking away from the man. If she says "Eww!" like your post mentions, its well within her rights to do so. Being allowed to go about nude doesn't mean that others are prohibited to react to your nudeness in a non-abusive way. If she followed him down the street screaming at him to put some clothes on, then she'd be in the wrong.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
Now, I do think that the imposition of headscarves and chador on women in Iran constitutes oppressive behavior, and I think that the imposition of this mode of dress as a requirement in the 70s is was part of an effort to force women back into second class citizen status in that country.
Not long ago I was shopping in town and ran into a muslim man I've met through my work shopping with his family. It was unusually hot for Maui due to some atypical winds and he was dressed for the weather in shorts, a tank-top and rubber slippers. His son was dressed similarly, but his wife and toddler daughter were swathed from head to toe and looked absolutely miserable.
I was very disturbed by the inequity of the modesty requirements for their culture. I belong to a community that values modesty, but the requirements are not all that different for the sexes... men are expected to wear longer shorts and sleeves on their shirts, just like women are. I doubt the wife of my work acquaintance felt oppressed - indeed, she probably would have been more uncomfortable in what she considered immodest clothing. But for her husband and son to have no apparent equivilant retrictions on clothing seemed very wrong to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I realize in rereading it that I failed to include something in it saying that I didn't know enough about the situation that you were talking about to know whether I would consider societal enforcement of the restrictions you were talking about oppressive or not. I don't consider the mode of dress that you adhere to oppressive, and I don't have the feeling that women in Orthodox Judaism are considered second class citizens, just to be absolutely clear on the subject.
Now, I do think that the imposition of headscarves and chador on women in Iran constitutes oppressive behavior, and I think that the imposition of this mode of dress as a requirement in the 70s is was part of an effort to force women back into second class citizen status in that country.
Thanks for the clarification.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There were reports of fanatical "modesty patrols" responsible for several incidents of beating and vandalism in Jerusalem late last year, too.
Unfortunately, such groups do exist. They are despicable and illegal (including under Jewish law) vigilantism.
quote:Anywhere you find the concept of "modesty," you'll eventually find some form of retribution taken against the "immodest."
I'm pretty sure I disagree with this. Regardless, the fact that a thing can be taken to extremes is not reason enough to invalidate it. Or are we buying slippery-slope arguments now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Regardless, the fact that a thing can be taken to extremes is not reason enough to invalidate it.
I didn't say it was, FWIW.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The implication was apparent -- to me, anyway.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Talk of modesty and immodesty runs 99% to what women do and wear. That says to me that it's really about gender bias more than modesty. You never hear about women being unable to control their urges when a man walks down the beach with his shirt off and his rippling muscles exposed for all to see.
It's clearly a way to put men in a dominant role, and women in a controlled position, while at the same time making confusing and arbitrary rules about what women are and are not allowed to wear, what men are and are not allowed to think and feel as a result.
Guilt, shame, and desire used as tools to control the population. It's really quite silly, if it weren't so disgusting.
I never hear of non-religious people making a big deal about it, which I think makes the case clearly. There is almost always a strong religious tie to the rules, and the flaunting or breaking of the rules with whatever subsequent punishment or consequences result.
It saddens me that so many people willfully submit themselves to this sort of enslavement. Take control and responsibility for your own desires and actions, and all this nonsense goes to the wayside.
There are countless populations around the world where much more skin is routinely shown, including full nudity, and those places aren't a hotbed of rape, promiscuity, immorality, and deprivation.
It's a means of control, and a scapegoat for unwillingness to take personal responsibility, nothing more.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:You never hear about women being unable to control their urges when a man walks down the beach with his shirt off and his rippling muscles exposed for all to see.
I do.
There are different issues for men and women, yes, but the issues are there for both men and women. That they may not be exactly the same in type or number does not mean that modesty is one-sided.
quote:It's a means of control, and a scapegoat for unwillingness to take personal responsibility, nothing more.
As several of us have already explained, to some of us it is much more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MC:
quote:Talk of modesty and immodesty runs 99% to what women do and wear. That says to me that it's really about gender bias more than modesty. You never hear about women being unable to control their urges when a man walks down the beach with his shirt off and his rippling muscles exposed for all to see.
You're right, but you do hear of women dressing sensually purely in order to "provoke" a reaction out of men. I don't know of many men who have that option when they dress up. I understand that alot of what goes into modesty is cultural, and it's unfortunate that some cultures have rules that are more accommodating than others. For me I try to give when I can, and take when I must in regards to modesty.
Modesty is a two part concept, how you dress effects you as an individual, and how you dress effects those who encounter you. Since clothes are a statement, I try to wear clothes that speak well to me, and strive to give no offense to others.
As for cultures that show more skin not being hotbeds of rape, promiscuity, etc. I wonder if there really isn't a correlation between dress codes and promiscuity. I do know that in Africa the segments of the continent where there are more Muslims tend to have less incidents of HIV than the rest of the continent.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't know of many men who have that option when they dress up.
I can think of some options... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*takes away kq's oil*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*shudders at image of oiled man flesh*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *takes away kq's oil*
Hey, how am I going to cook dinner if you take away my oil?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for cultures that show more skin not being hotbeds of rape, promiscuity, etc. I wonder if there really isn't a correlation between dress codes and promiscuity. I do know that in Africa the segments of the continent where there are more Muslims tend to have less incidents of HIV than the rest of the continent.
Did you really write this? Really? So the reasoning goes something like this: Muslim - > more clothes on females - > fewer incidents of rape or promiscuity - > fewer HIV cases? Because, of course, there's no other common factor or factors in Islamic African cultures - besides those crazy, crazy clothes - that could possibly lead to either less incidents of promiscuity or fewer HIV cases.
Edit: this is one of those cases where a big stick with "correlation does not equal causation" should be applied. I bet all the countries with high HIV rates are sub-Saharan too... Call the presses! Living south of a big desert spreads HIV!!! Get all those people out of Rajasthan!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote: I do know that in Africa the segments of the continent where there are more Muslims tend to have less incidents of HIV than the rest of the continent.
I believe that's "reported cases of HIV", reported being the operative word, because its also more likely to be under reported in those cases, and "cases" instead of "incidents" please. HIV is a disease and those who acquire it are people. Neither are "incidents".
However, I wonder what these guys would say if someone wrote, "I am a man with irrisitable homosexual urges. If wear shorts that are too short, or shirts and pants that are tight, or if you bend over the wrong way, well, I just may not be able to help myself. You are leading me to sin. etc. etc."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *takes away kq's oil*
Hey, how am I going to cook dinner if you take away my oil?
Hmm. Guess you can't really use wine instead, huh?
*gives kq back 1 c.*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thanks, but actually we are off to Pediatric Urgent Care so we'll pick up dinner while we're out. So I guess I'll just have to reserve this oil for other purposes. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Thanks, but actually we are off to Pediatric Urgent Care
Yikes! Somebody sick?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There were reports of fanatical "modesty patrols" responsible for several incidents of beating and vandalism in Jersualem late last year, too. Anywhere you find the concept of "modesty," you'll eventually find some form of retribution taken against the "immodest."
I don't think so. Anywhere you find the concept of extremism, then maybe.
In my community, if you dress immodestly, people understand that you aren't adhering the the shared values of the community. In certain communities in Israel, to the disdain of many, they might throw things at you...to be fair, they post signs that they they'll throw stuff at you if you are dressed immodestly, which is a WHOLE lot better...
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't think so. Anywhere you find the concept of extremism, then maybe.
So, then, everywhere humans live?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's not quite what the signs say. But I agree that the throwing things (which actually doesn't often happen even when people are not dressed to Meah Shearim / Geulah standards; glares and crossing the street are far more common) is not an especially productive response.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Haha. My friend's mother got water thrown on her...
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Talk of modesty and immodesty runs 99% to what women do and wear.
That's because there is less pressure for men to expose their bodies, and less risk of exploitation if they do. Certainly there could be sexist forms of modesty mores, but practiced the right way it actually shows respect for women. Of course, as with everything, it works better when the women actually know why they're doing it and need not be coerced.
quote: I never hear of non-religious people making a big deal about it, which I think makes the case clearly.
You've obviously never met my mom! Seriously, I do hear non-religious people talk about inappropriate dress. Having it all hanging out is just disgusting. People keep talking about sparing men- what about sparing the women, eh! I certainly get tired of the endless parade of jiggling T & A inflicted on us by our media, for everything from toothpaste to politics.
quote: It saddens me that so many people willfully submit themselves to this sort of enslavement. Take control and responsibility for your own desires and actions, and all this nonsense goes to the wayside.
It's ironic to me that when people claim to speak out for the liberation of a particular group or person, they so often end up infantilizing same.
To me it's really about self-respect. What you respect, you don't treat as common and cheap or as something to be traded as a commodity. Of course, in a way there is nothing more common than nudity, but I believe things have their proper uses. In a doctor's office, in the privacy of one's home- no problem. It is really, absolutely a misnomer that modesty must involve shame. From my own experience, and from what I've seen in Muslim countries, people who cover in public are very free and relaxed with their bodies in the right places- perhaps moreso than in our anorexic/ exhibitionist culture.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: My friend's mother got water thrown on her...
Lovely.
And of course, it makes the problem so much better! Wet t-shirt contests at Malchei Yisrael!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: It's ironic to me that when people claim to speak out for the liberation of a particular group or person, they so often end up infantilizing same.
Please explain to me who I'm infantilizing and how.
quote: To me it's really about self-respect. What you respect, you don't treat as common and cheap or as something to be traded as a commodity.
Ah, there's the crux of the matter. You are the one who sees the body as a commodity, and showing it off as cheapening it. You only consider modest clothing self-respect because you have decided that immodest clothing is disrespectful somehow.
That's my point. If you accept that your body is not something to be ashamed of, then there's nothing cheap or common about exposing it in public.
What is it about wearing a bikini, or a short skirt, or whatever sort of "immodest" clothes makes you respect yourself less?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Thanks, but actually we are off to Pediatric Urgent Care
Yikes! Somebody sick?
Just follow-up. Couldn't get in with the ped at a time that worked for us. Emma had a UTI.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: What is it about wearing a bikini, or a short skirt, or whatever sort of "immodest" clothes makes you respect yourself less?
For me, the question would be where are you wearing those things? I see nothing immodest about a bikini at the beach, but I don't feel it's appropriate at work. A short skirt is fine for going out to the club, but it's probably not a great idea for picking the kids up at school.
Do you ever watch What Not To Wear on TLC? Generally, women who wear revealing clothes in inappropriate situations have Peter Pan syndrome. They haven't figured out how to age gracefully, and they haven't seen that age-appropriate clothes actually make them look younger than the stuff in the Junior's department. And at the end of every episode, the women feel better about themselves and gush about how their outer self now matches their inner self.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Modesty, for me, is related to humility. In many ways, it would be like someone with a high IQ who came up to everyone and said, "Hi, my IQ is 180. I am so smart and great." Except the clothes say "hey, look at my great bod!!" And when displaying your great bod becomes a virtue, those of us that don't have a great bod to share are more likely to feel shame in their body. In terms of what clothes would be immodest, I think it would have to do with attitude and style, not necessarily what is being shown.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Please explain to me who I'm infantilizing and how.
This, spoken to adults, is rather patronizing:
quote:Take control and responsibility for your own desires and actions, and all this nonsense goes to the wayside.
And characterizing them as in "enslavement," as though no one would ever choose such an approach on their own.
quote: That's my point. If you accept that your body is not something to be ashamed of, then there's nothing cheap or common about exposing it in public.
Do you lock your doors, have a sense of boundary? Or do you let whoever wants to walk in off the street and root through your fridge and put their feet up on the end table? If you don't do that, tell me: Why are you so ashamed of your home?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Modesty, for me, is related to humility. In many ways, it would be like someone with a high IQ who came up to everyone and said, "Hi, my IQ is 180. I am so smart and great." Except the clothes say "hey, look at my great bod!!" And when displaying your great bod becomes a virtue, those of us that don't have a great bod to share are more likely to feel shame in their body. In terms of what clothes would be immodest, I think it would have to do with attitude and style, not necessarily what is being shown.
Why does wearing "immodest" clothing have to be about displaying your great bod? Why can't it just be about wearing what you like to wear, for whatever reason. If you go to a lot of beaches in Europe - or even saunas & pools - you'll end up seeing a lot of naked people or people (both male & female) in bikini-like bottoms only. At least in Germany, there's a lot of chubby naked people, and old naked people, and pale, scrawny naked people to be seen. No one gives a hoot one way or another.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you lock your doors, have a sense of boundary?
For what it's worth, I don't lock my doors.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Do you lock your doors, have a sense of boundary? Or do you let whoever wants to walk in off the street and root through your fridge and put their feet up on the end table? If you don't do that, tell me: Why are you so ashamed of your home?
The difference is that it's not particular useful or enjoyable to me to let random people into my house to root through my fridge. Going naked in the public sauna or (warm) nude beach, however, greatly improves the experience compared to going with a "modest" bathing suit, at least in my experience. Wearing very little clothing on super hot days is also more enjoyable than more clothing. Exercising with just enough clothes to keep things from jiggling improves my workout (when I'm working out in a hot place, that is).
Edit: we also don't lock our doors when out for the day. The last robbery in the area was two years ago, and we have to large dogs, one of which has plenty of guarding instincts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a difference between an open house - letting people look - and letting people touch or "rummage through" things.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Now, I do think that the imposition of headscarves and chador on women in Iran constitutes oppressive behavior, and I think that the imposition of this mode of dress as a requirement in the 70s is was part of an effort to force women back into second class citizen status in that country.
And then there was the forced Westernization of earlier shahs, where Iranian women were forbidden to wear the chador. Older, more rural and conservative women in particular didn't want to leave their homes as a result, since they felt wrong about going outside without hijab. I'd call that second-class treatment as well.
************************
quote:You never hear about women being unable to control their urges when a man walks down the beach with his shirt off and his rippling muscles exposed for all to see.
That's because we think men who hang around half-dressed, in general, would be much sexier if they would put some clothes on and go get a job. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:For what it's worth, I don't lock my doors.
Goes to Tom's house, rummages through freezer, steals all the ice cream, leaves. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a difference between an open house - letting people look - and letting people touch or "rummage through" things.
There's the rub. People having a hard time differentiating between allowing things to be seen, and an invitation to rummage (even mentally).
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a difference between an open house - letting people look - and letting people touch or "rummage through" things.
There's the rub. People having a hard time differentiating between allowing things to be seen, and an invitation to rummage (even mentally).
Oh, so people going nekkid just want everyone else not to look?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Oh, so people going nekkid just want everyone else not to look?
In a society where nudity is not stigmatized, whether people are looking or not isn't a consideration.
When my wife goes outside without a burka it's not because she wants to arouse people. It's because she doesn't want to wear a burka.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'd like to add some random musings on the subject.
There is no absolute standard for what constitutes sexually provocative dress and grooming. Anyone who has been to a beach in Europe can tell you that nakedness is not necessarily sexy -- in fact most people (sans airbrush) are sexier when they are wearing at least a little clothing. On the flip side, the makeup worn by the average girl on the BYU campus would be viewed as sexual provocative in much of Europe where typically only prostitutes wear that much makeup.
quote:I never hear of non-religious people making a big deal about it, which I think makes the case clearly.
Then I have to say your experience is fairly limited. At a scientific conference I attend annually, one female graduate student dressed for her presentation wearing a blouse that revealed much of her chest. There was an extensive discussion among the more senior women in the group about how to explain to this young woman why her attire was inappropriate for this professional venue. None of the people involved were particularly religious. I have been in numerous discussions with women scientists and engineers about professional attire for women and the inappropriateness of sexually provocative clothing in professional settings.
While i fully agree that there is no absolute standard for what constitutes sexually provocative, within any given culture there are behaviors that are widely agreed to be sexually provocative. There is nothing per se wrong with being sexually provocative. I have some very provocative things I sometimes wear for my husband. But when I'm giving a lecture for my students or discussing a research plan with my peers, I don't want them about me in a sexual way.
Its not a simple issue. As Tatiana pointed out earlier, if our culture found wearing pants to be sexually provocative as it once did -- I wouldn't be able to do my job, participate in sports or do many of things that make my life meaningful. If I had to wear a Burka, I couldn't deliver a lecture in front of a class or work in a laboratory.
Cultures that demand women dress in impractical ways, find private rooms to breast feed their crying hungry babies or otherwise curtail normal practical life in order to avoid being sexually provocative are oppressive and need to be challenged. I think it is wise to respect cultural ideas about what is sexually provocative so long they don't significantly limit my freedom to participate in society. Men need to learn mental discipline rather than placing impractical and irrational restrictions on women.
As a final note, there is one motivation for modest dress that hasn't been fully discussed even though I think it is a significant motivation for me and I suspect many other Mormons, orthodox Jews and perhaps other religious people. I consider my body to be a sacred thing deserving of reverence and respect. For me modest dress is much more about showing reverence for my body than anything else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Gina,
First - vast acres of variation between "nekkid" and burkas.
Second, no. That is the opposite of what I wrote. "Looking" (when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) is not the same as leering, ogling, commenting on, touching, harrassing, taking, or otherwise "rummaging".
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Do you lock your doors, have a sense of boundary? Or do you let whoever wants to walk in off the street and root through your fridge and put their feet up on the end table? If you don't do that, tell me: Why are you so ashamed of your home?
Again, I ask you to look closely at your own words. You are making a direct analogy between wearing "immodest" clothes and someone rooting through your fridge and putting your feet up on the end table. Do I really need to page Dr. Freud?
An appropriate analogy would be leaving your window shades open during the day, and feeling violated because someone on the street looked inside.
The fact that you equate immodesty with a violent and physical intrusion I think speaks for itself.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Do you lock your doors, have a sense of boundary? Or do you let whoever wants to walk in off the street and root through your fridge and put their feet up on the end table? If you don't do that, tell me: Why are you so ashamed of your home?
Again, I ask you to look closely at your own words. You are making a direct analogy between wearing "immodest" clothes and someone rooting through your fridge and putting your feet up on the end table. Do I really need to page Dr. Freud?
An appropriate analogy would be leaving your window shades open during the day, and feeling violated because someone on the street looked inside.
The fact that you equate immodesty with a violent and physical intrusion I think speaks for itself.
Rooting through the fridge is violent?
No, I think the analogy fits exactly what I was saying. In its proper context, nudity or partial nudity is just fine- the blinds can be up. But the fact that there are boundaries, or that the boundaries of some are higher than others, does not imply shame of what's behind them. It implies a sense of propriety and proprietary respect.
In fact it seems to me that a lot of the people who expose themselves are as likely to be the ones carrying shame. Just as the person who is showy about his or her wealth is often the least secure in it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rooting through the fridge is violent?
Taking something from the fridge certainly is.
"Rooting through the fridge" without taking anything out of the fridge is more closely equivalent to leaning forward to look up someone's short skirt, IMO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In fact it seems to me that a lot of the people who expose themselves are as likely to be the ones carrying shame. Just as the person who is showy about his or her wealth is often the least secure in it.
Neither of these tidbits of armchair psychology are very reliably true at all.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
Why does wearing "immodest" clothing have to be about displaying your great bod? Why can't it just be about wearing what you like to wear, for whatever reason. If you go to a lot of beaches in Europe - or even saunas & pools - you'll end up seeing a lot of naked people or people (both male & female) in bikini-like bottoms only. At least in Germany, there's a lot of chubby naked people, and old naked people, and pale, scrawny naked people to be seen. No one gives a hoot one way or another. [/QUOTE]
In that place and culture, I would not consider going topless to be immodest. I don't consider people who are breastfeeding and not covering to be immodest either. It's not what you display so much as how you display it.
I had a somewhat similar experience as Rabbit at a scientific convention, though I am a grad student. One of the other grad students was very attractive and gave a talk in an outfit that would have fit in nicely at a dance club. The men around me spent her entire talk leering. One was using his camera's zoom function to get a better view. The men's actions were very inappropriate and they should not have responded that way. However, the woman should also know that if you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you give your presentation dressed as a scientist. Though that really was not about modesty, but professionalism.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
So if people go naked here in a sauna, they're not being humble, and are, in essence, saying "hey everyone, look at my great bod" while if they cross the Atlantic and do it, suddenly they aren't arrogant in nature?
Right. Germany isn't all that different, culturally from the US. They're just less hung up on shame with regard to the human body.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it makes a great deal of sense to have dress codes for work environments. It's understood and appropriate for people in an organization to agree to give up certain freedoms in order to make the entire machine run more smoothly.
Smart organizations make the dress code appropriate to the type of work being done, of course.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I think it's really not a big deal. Personally you can wear whatever you want and deal with how others view you as a result. It is absurd and stupid to say that men or women's arousal has no association with the attire of members of the other sex.
If you want to wear a burka, go ahead. If you want to wear a bikini to class, go ahead. In both cases I'll think you're really weird, but you probably knew that when you stepped out the door.
Rivka, as to why modesty laws constitute oppression: Forcing people to do things they don't necessarily want to do is oppressive. Hell, a law against murder is oppressive if you want to murder somebody. It doesn't mean it's not a good idea, though. Weighing the pros and cons is necessary in both cases, and I think that the issue of modesty is a far hazier one than that of murder.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Going naked in a sauna seems like a perfectly rational place to go naked. There's a good reason, it is more enjoyable that way. Like I said, modesty, for me isn't about what you are wearing or what it covers or does not, but the attitude with which you do it.
ETA- example of someone I considered immodest- At work, a woman was wearing a shirt that was extremely tight across the chest. She was clearly limited in her movement by it and looked very uncomfortable (physically, not emotionally). But it did show off her chest nicely. The shirt said nothing but look at my bod. And that is someone I would consider immodest and consider it wrong.
[ January 07, 2009, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think that word - oppression - doesn't mean what you think it means.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Rooting through the fridge is violent?
No, I think the analogy fits exactly what I was saying.
I do not believe that one can "root" through something gently or passively, no.
You seem to be missing the distinction though. What you are using as an analogy is someone trespassing onto personal property, opening a closed refrigerator, shoving their hands into said fridge, and moving the food around in a rough, impolite manner.
The fact that you feel that this is an appropriate and accurate metaphor for someone looking at a person wearing "immodest" clothes tells me that to you, the mere act of looking at someone constitutes an aggressive violation of personal property, space, and that it physically disrupts the person's possessions.
I would say that either you are using extreme hyperbole, or your view of modesty is so out of sync with mine that we're not really even talking about the same thing.
quote: In fact it seems to me that a lot of the people who expose themselves are as likely to be the ones carrying shame. Just as the person who is showy about his or her wealth is often the least secure in it.
This seems to confirm the latter. Your world view is radically different from mine, if you believe that people who are comfortable with their bodies are ashamed of themselves. It's difficult for me to imagine the thought process which comes to that conclusion. If I had to take a guess though, I'd say you're projecting your own shame. As long as we're trading armchair psychology.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for cultures that show more skin not being hotbeds of rape, promiscuity, etc. I wonder if there really isn't a correlation between dress codes and promiscuity. I do know that in Africa the segments of the continent where there are more Muslims tend to have less incidents of HIV than the rest of the continent.
Did you really write this? Really? So the reasoning goes something like this: Muslim - > more clothes on females - > fewer incidents of rape or promiscuity - > fewer HIV cases? Because, of course, there's no other common factor or factors in Islamic African cultures - besides those crazy, crazy clothes - that could possibly lead to either less incidents of promiscuity or fewer HIV cases.
Edit: this is one of those cases where a big stick with "correlation does not equal causation" should be applied. I bet all the countries with high HIV rates are sub-Saharan too... Call the presses! Living south of a big desert spreads HIV!!! Get all those people out of Rajasthan!
Please calm down. I was not trying to say that the only reason Muslims have less incidents of HIV was caused by their wardrobes. I think it's likely there are variables that are more strongly related to promiscuity than clothing. I was merely wondering allowed about whether dress codes are related at all to promiscuity. You could help me understand why they are not with examples or data, or I suppose you could remain in your state of consternation.
Darth Mauve:
quote:I believe that's "reported cases of HIV", reported being the operative word, because its also more likely to be under reported in those cases, and "cases" instead of "incidents" please. HIV is a disease and those who acquire it are people. Neither are "incidents".
I don't think accuracy in reporting does enough to explain the disparity.
I'm having trouble linking a map, if you are interested just use google images and look up "HIV Africa Map 2008"
Rabbit: I liked your musings.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I don't have time to read everything but I have to say I spent several years working with the young women ages 12-17 in my congregation. Our church teaches a standard of modesty that is often viewed as more strict than other standards in the world. We had a big problem with girls dressing in tight fashions letting far more of their beautiful developing bodies to be visible. Many of them did this purposely to make themselves attractive to the young men. Some did it because it was "in style". We had a frank discussion with them. Of course we want to look beautiful. God created us as beautiful women, he doesn't want us to deny that. But (in our church) he also expects us to behave and dress modestly. Not only to make it easier on the young men who struggle with indecent thoughts but to show respect for themselves. When we pointed out that there are "old" men who struggle with impure thoughts who look at them in these clothes it opened their eyes a bit. We did not want them to feel like they had to hide everything but girls, and women, do need to realize that how they dress DOES send a message about who they are and it most certainly does stimulate sexual thoughts in men. Men are visual creatures. And while we can't control what a man thinks we can influence them to think better. Wearing tight clothing that shows off the girls doesn't influence them to think better thoughts.
Likewise there are boys and men who need to be more modest. One of the current trends for boys to wear their pants below their behinds showing off their undies is not modest either. And its not modest for guys to wear super tight skinny jeans showing off their jewels either.
Modesty is more than just clothing. It is an attitude of respect for one's self in action and thought as well.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You seem to be missing the distinction though. What you are using as an analogy is someone trespassing onto personal property, opening a closed refrigerator, shoving their hands into said fridge, and moving the food around in a rough, impolite manner.
This whole touch vs. look is a rabbit trail- the analogy means to distinguish that there are things that are for public consumption and things that are private, and because one considers one's parts to be something for the private sphere and not the public isn't a symptom of "enslavement."
quote:This seems to confirm the latter. Your world view is radically different from mine, if you believe that people who are comfortable with their bodies are ashamed of themselves.
The woman who feels she has to flaunt it and the man in a Speedo might simply be tasteless, it's true.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm having trouble linking a map, if you are interested just use google images and look up "HIV Africa Map 2008"
Here's one. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I want to point out that the very fact that there are so many different views of what modesty is and whether it's desirable means you can NOT often correctly interpret the "message" someone is trying to send via their clothes. If clothes send any sort of message, then we all speak entirely different languages. So I urge people, given that, to be generous in their interpretations. If someone is dressing in a way that you find immodest, instead of thinking "what a brazen hussy", why not think "she's from a different culture than I, one in which her dress is obviously appropriate"? Why not err on the side of civilization, of generosity, and cosmopolitan sensibilities? Why not simply fail to notice the difference between you?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:why not think "she's from a different culture than I, one in which her dress is obviously appropriate"?
Or one in which it is inappropriate, but s/he chooses to dress so anyway. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: The woman who feels she has to flaunt it and the man in a Speedo might simply be tasteless, it's true.
What is "flaunting it?" And what about a man in a speedo is tasteless? Some guys look great in speedos - or is that what you're objecting to?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I thought these outfits might be an interesting point of conversation.
I would generally consider these professionally modest. However, in my own conservative backround should I have actually worn one of these outfits myself, and look attractive, I would have been sent home to change by my parents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Being willing to share something does not mean that one does not value that something. People have different boundaries but they can still highly respect themselves. Perhaps rather than indicating insecurity, what you call immodesty could be an indication that a person realizes that her value is such that it can't be diminished no matter how she decides to share it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm curious BannaOj as to your wording. Would your parents have found all of these outfits immodest or only one of them.
By my standards, nearly all of these outfits would qualify as modest, at least on the models who are wearing them. I would find most of them professionally appropriate but there are some exceptions.
This one I would find immodest in a professional science and engineering setting and possibly some of the other shorter skirts but it really depends on the specifics of the occasion.
I find the very high heels worn in most of the pictures inappropriate for professional wear but that is more a practical issue than a modesty issue.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: The woman who feels she has to flaunt it and the man in a Speedo might simply be tasteless, it's true.
What is "flaunting it?" And what about a man in a speedo is tasteless? Some guys look great in speedos - or is that what you're objecting to?
Speedos are very practical. If what you are actually doing is swimming and not parading on the beach, there is nothing more practical than a tight fitting suit. This is one of those issues where some peoples standards of modesty really do intrude on practical participation.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The majority of them Rabbit. I thought about going through outfit by outfit of how I would have been criticized for being immodest.
Among a certian segment the ill-fitting baggy look is equivalent to modest. Appropriately dress equals for them, an attempt to look attractive, which would be vanity.
My mother gave me a denim jumper the dimensions of a burlap sack when I turned 20, and thought it would be perfectly appropriate wear in most situations. While not a burka, I've seen many professional muslim women rock a hijab with grace and style. I've yet to see anyone do the same with a denim jumper.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think you should consider yourself responsible BOTH for the effects you have on others and for the ways that others effect you. If person A causes person B to do C, then person A and person B are BOTH responsible for C.
But the corollary to that is, I think you should generally be concerned with judging only yourself. Person A has no business blaming person B, and person B has no business blaming person A, because even though both are reponsible for what happened, each should be worrying about how they in particular contributed to it, not how the other did.
What this means for modesty is this: If you think its a sin to think indecent thoughts, don't dress in a way that would cause people to think indecent thoughts. And if you think its a sin to think indecent thoughts, don't allow yourself to think indecent thoughts when you see people dressed certain ways. But if you do, don't blame the other person.
I'm not inclined to think basic thoughts are immoral though, unless they come along with actions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: ... If someone is dressing in a way that you find immodest, instead of thinking "what a brazen hussy", why not think "she's from a different culture than I, one in which her dress is obviously appropriate"?
To add to this point, I may note that some of us effectively choose our culture which makes it even more difficult to interpret.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What this means for modesty is this: If you think its a sin to think indecent thoughts, don't dress in a way that would cause people to think indecent thoughts.
I'm sorry, but I still reject that reasoning entirely. I can't hold myself responsible for what happens in someone else's brain. That makes no sense. "Oh wow I should have realized that the sight of my bare neck was an irresistible temptation to that murderer guy, so how can I complain when he came after me with his butcher knife?" Uhn uh.
American women in Kuwait who wear shorts (even baggy knee-covering shorts) in public are subject to being attacked. Did you know that? Do you know how hot it is in Kuwait? The men can wear whatever they like.
So, obviously, what is provocative and what isn't is not always clear. Also, old people have totally different standards of modesty than young people, and that's always been true, and it isn't a bad thing. As I said above, I'm super glad I don't have to wear the floor-length dresses and wrist-length sleeves required of my foremothers.
So the whole idea that women have to dress a certain way to protect men from their thoughts is a loser. It's a way of demeaning women, making them feel like their bodies are toxic, and basically subjugating them. And I refuse to have anything to do with it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: But the corollary to that is, I think you should generally be concerned with judging only yourself. Person A has no business blaming person B, and person B has no business blaming person A, because even though both are reponsible for what happened, each should be worrying about how they in particular contributed to it, not how the other did.
>_<
This is, unfortunately, paradoxical. If you're responsible for something negative, you can be blamed for it. It's nonsensical to say that there is no blame.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: But the corollary to that is, I think you should generally be concerned with judging only yourself. Person A has no business blaming person B, and person B has no business blaming person A, because even though both are reponsible for what happened, each should be worrying about how they in particular contributed to it, not how the other did.
>_<
This is, unfortunately, paradoxical. If you're responsible for something negative, you can be blamed for it. It's nonsensical to say that there is no blame.
Utilitarianism, at least, distinguishes from doing a wrong act and doing a blameworthy act. If you do something wrong - and in utilitarianism an act is wrong if it leads to bad outcomes - then you're at least partially (edit: in a causal sense) responsible for the end result. But if you acted with the best of intentions, and circumstances just conspired differently than anyone might expect, then you might not considered blameworthy.
Not that I don't think that Tres is wrong on this matter - but it's a bit more complicated than you say above.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So, obviously, what is provocative and what isn't is not always clear.
That is completely correct. More generally, it is typically very difficult to predict how people will react to any given action you take. And it is impossible to know beforehand EVERY effect that any given action will have. For instance, perhaps dressing provocatively might cause a certain person passing on the street to start having second thoughts about his marriage, leading him eventually to have a divorce, leading his daughter to move away to a different town, where she switches to a better school, which leads to her becoming a lawyer, and one day she becomes the first female president. Who knows? Seeing into the future perfectly is impossible.
But that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the effects of your actions. Rather, it just means that figuring out the right thing to do is extremely tricky. I think that's why moral systems have rules, like "don't do X" - to make it easier to figure out what to do.
I don't think you have a moral duty to act perfectly, because nobody can do that. But I do think you have the duty to try your best to do good, and included in that is all the ways you influence others. You can't ever know if what you are doing is the very best choice, but you can try to do your best.
quote:This is, unfortunately, paradoxical. If you're responsible for something negative, you can be blamed for it. It's nonsensical to say that there is no blame.
You can be blamed for any negative effect you cause in another person. I'm just saying it is counterproductive for other people to blame you, or for you to blame others. It's a waste of time, and often just serves as an excuse so the person blaming others can avoid blaming himself or herself. People should instead worry about their own actions, not about what other people are to blame for.
What this means for this topic is that people should decide for themselves what they should wear. They shouldn't go around worrying about whether or not the clothing on other people is appropriate or not. And they definitely shouldn't use "she's to blame for making me have these thoughts" as an excuse for avoiding blame for what goes on in their own mind. They need to worry about their own control over their own mind.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
Note: Reading three pages of posts during the first two hours at the office is not necessarily indicative of incredible boredom. Yet, in this instance, that is a totally accurate assumption.
quote:Originally posted by dean: Certainly she can dress in such a way as to discourage leering, but she cannot entirely prevent it.
Too true.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I think men benefit just as much from dressing modestly as women do. I think for me, dressing modestly is less about not inciting others to lust, and more about showing that I adhere to a certain standard of conduct and place myself apart from those who do not.
Also agreed.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The problem is the idiotic notion that it's wrong to have sexual thoughts. None of us would be alive today if our parents and every generation before them didn't have overwhelming sexual desires.
It's simply a means of controlling people by convincing them that they and their thoughts are inherently bad, and that the most natural things are unnatural.
It is SIMPLY a means of controlling people?! Not at all...not at all. While there are certainly groups who do foster such thoughts, I think that the correct line that was taken at least in the case of my parents and church is that these things ARE natural but just have an appropriate time and place. In fact, they are completely natural and God-given according to our beliefs. I'd be tempted to argue that sex is given a place of higher value than in 'secular' circles because of where and when it is deemed appropriate. Not going to necessarily take that line, though, for it might be putting words and ideas in others' mouths/minds where I have no room to talk.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: Comments about how you bend over are ridiculous.
I disagree. If I stick my hind end up in the air, that's an eye catcher I don't want you staring at....
Since I'm the one who's uncomfortable with you looking at my bits, I'm ok with taking responsibility for how I bend over....
I'm going to take a middle path with this one. It's more polite to not put everything on display and to wear what's generally considered appropriate for the occasion. I'm still a big fan of individual expression, just within some boundaries.
However, these guys seem to have forgotten their Paul. It's bad to cause others to sin if you do it knowingly. Therefore, if my friend confides in me that he thinks lustful thoughts about a particular body part or outfit of mine and I flaunt it in front of him, then I'm sinning.
We seem to be of similar mind, AvidReader.
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: My dad once told me that the way I dressed would influence who was attracted to me. I've found this to be mostly true- the way you dress DOES say something about you- your values, your commitments, even. For example, if I show up to a job interview wearing torn, muddy jeans and a ripped t-shirt, that's going to tell that employer that I care nothing about my appearance and probably won't care much about the job. Same as showing up with my uniform wrinkled and dirty- it's a reflection on you to the customers or the people you're working with.
I don't want the first thing someone thinks about me to be "Wow, she's hot, I'd totally hit that." There's a difference, to me, in the above statement, and "hey, she's really pretty." And the way I dress can influence that, in my experience.
The way I dress is primarily based on what I'M comfortable exposing....
Personally, I've never attended a church where they told us exactly what to wear, down to the details. They asked for certain things in certain situations- one piece bathing suits for girls, and t-shirts and swim trunks for guys at church camp, for example- but as long as we weren't dressing in order to deliberately provoke sexual stimulation in those around us, we could wear what we wanted.
Granted, this is just my limited experience. But I thought I'd share.
My experience has been very near to yours, it seems. Continuing on, clothing choice, 'modest' or not, is a lot about image. What kind of image are you trying to project? Do you want to come off as a Jessica Rabbit? Or do you want to appear professional or artsy or edgy or [fill in the blank]?
And besides, you can be wearing an overly large potato sack yet your body cues will give off certain vibes anyway. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, to give off vibes with body language. It could be very good...under the right circumstances.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Talk of modesty and immodesty runs 99% to what women do and wear. That says to me that it's really about gender bias more than modesty. You never hear about women being unable to control their urges when a man walks down the beach with his shirt off and his rippling muscles exposed for all to see.
Personally, that more often causes me to roll my eyes than anything else.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: [QUOTE]I had a somewhat similar experience as Rabbit at a scientific convention, though I am a grad student. One of the other grad students was very attractive and gave a talk in an outfit that would have fit in nicely at a dance club. The men around me spent her entire talk leering. One was using his camera's zoom function to get a better view. The men's actions were very inappropriate and they should not have responded that way. However, the woman should also know that if you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you give your presentation dressed as a scientist. Though that really was not about modesty, but professionalism.
Amen to that. It doesn't do well for a woman in a professional setting like that to call attention away from what SHOULD be drawing her and her colleagues notice by distracting everyone, men and women alike, with her physical assets.
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: I don't have time to read everything but I have to say I spent several years working with the young women ages 12-17 in my congregation. Our church teaches a standard of modesty that is often viewed as more strict than other standards in the world. We had a big problem with girls dressing in tight fashions letting far more of their beautiful developing bodies to be visible. Many of them did this purposely to make themselves attractive to the young men. Some did it because it was "in style". We had a frank discussion with them. Of course we want to look beautiful. God created us as beautiful women, he doesn't want us to deny that. But (in our church) he also expects us to behave and dress modestly. Not only to make it easier on the young men who struggle with indecent thoughts but to show respect for themselves. When we pointed out that there are "old" men who struggle with impure thoughts who look at them in these clothes it opened their eyes a bit. We did not want them to feel like they had to hide everything but girls, and women, do need to realize that how they dress DOES send a message about who they are and it most certainly does stimulate sexual thoughts in men. Men are visual creatures. And while we can't control what a man thinks we can influence them to think better. Wearing tight clothing that shows off the girls doesn't influence them to think better thoughts.
Likewise there are boys and men who need to be more modest. One of the current trends for boys to wear their pants below their behinds showing off their undies is not modest either. And its not modest for guys to wear super tight skinny jeans showing off their jewels either.
Modesty is more than just clothing. It is an attitude of respect for one's self in action and thought as well.
Jumping back to the original post from dean for a second, this survey has been brought to my attention in the past, and the girl who brought it up didn't get overly paranoid as a result of reading the results; instead, she took it to heart properly to my view. The bottom line is mutual respect as well as respect for your own person, as you've mentioned.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, being comfortable in clothing that someone else does not consider modest does not necessarily mean a lack of respect for oneself. People do sometimes share that which they value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wearing tight clothing that shows off the girls doesn't influence them to think better thoughts.
I'm always offended by the assertion that someone can make me think something.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Apple.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Wearing tight clothing that shows off the girls doesn't influence them to think better thoughts.
I'm always offended by the assertion that someone can make me think something.
Going to pick on the use of the word make here. It's not so much about conceitedly thinking you can make people think anything. It's more about potentially causing them to; it's about being considerate.
To give a kind of silly example, I've got a tennis match tonight and plan to wear a skirt with white shorts attached underneath as well as two white shirts. I could go out there thinking, "Hey, if I wear a dark colored sports bra and only one white shirt, maybe that will distract the guy from the other mixed doubles team so that he messes up some shots. Or maybe if I wear underwear that obviously show through the white shorts, he'll catch a glimpse when I hit some shot and his eye will be drawn, thus causing him to make a mistake." Did I do that? Nope. Instead, I'll be dressed in an appropriate matter for the tennis club where the match is taking place and in a way that will avoid any potential distractions. At least as much as I can control such thoughts on their part.
[ January 09, 2009, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Traceria ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Apple.
*laugh* The amusing thing is that my immediate thought was "what about her?" Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I thought it might have that effect a couple of moments after I had posted it. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Apple.
*laugh* The amusing thing is that my immediate thought was "what about her?"
When somebody says "apple" your immediate response is to think about Gweneth Paltrow and Chris Martins' baby?
I like any other normal person think about The Beatles. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Apple.
*laugh* The amusing thing is that my immediate thought was "what about her?"
Me too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Apple.
*laugh* The amusing thing is that my immediate thought was "what about her?"
When somebody says "apple" your immediate response is to think about Gweneth Paltrow and Chris Martins' baby?
Apple's a longtime member of sakeriver.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Who used to post here under another name, but I believe has not done so in years.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Apple.
*laugh* The amusing thing is that my immediate thought was "what about her?"
When somebody says "apple" your immediate response is to think about Gweneth Paltrow and Chris Martins' baby?
Apple's a longtime member of sakeriver.
Ah! I don't know how you folks have time for multiple forums. I suppose if they let me use the internet at my job then I would.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I like any other normal person think about The Beatles.
Amen to that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know how you folks have time for multiple forums.
Priorities. Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
While I can't make you think something I can certainly influence you to think something. Isn't that what attraction between men and women is all about? I do or say or wear things to make me attractive to my spouse. When we were dating I knew full well if I walked a certain way I'd catch his eye and his attention.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think the idea that you can't make someone else think something is inherently flawed. It's like (albeit to a greatly diminished degree) saying, "just because I hit you, I'm not responsible for your response." You provide a physical stimulus that's processed by my wetware into some action. To say that the generator of the stimulus is zero percent culpable seems wrong to me.
To use a different hypothetical, if I hand an alcoholic a drink, particularly if I'm aware she's an alcoholic, I am not blameless if she starts drinking. If she's stated that she's trying to quit, I would say my blame is even greater. Even if she just sees me enjoying my own drink (a much decreased stimulus, but still a stimulus), I don't think I'm blameless.
It seems to me there's a reason our society has created the concept of addiction. Human behavior walks a tricky balance between automatic response to stimuli and more deductive decision making, and pretending like rationality insulates one from responsibility for your effect on others denies a fundamental part of human nature.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Indeed. If you read Pinker on why people swear and use taboo language, one of the main reasons is that it is a way of forcing other people to think unpleasant thoughts. Which is not to say that it's impossible to resist being mentally pushed around in this way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: While I can't make you think something I can certainly influence you to think something. Isn't that what attraction between men and women is all about? I do or say or wear things to make me attractive to my spouse. When we were dating I knew full well if I walked a certain way I'd catch his eye and his attention.
That doesn't make someone else responsible for your actions, though.
Also what you think immodest dress says about a person might not be true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: Indeed. If you read Pinker on why people swear and use taboo language, one of the main reasons is that it is a way of forcing other people to think unpleasant thoughts. Which is not to say that it's impossible to resist being mentally pushed around in this way.
Interestingly, I came across an article on this a while back.
Its partially true, but some people swear and use taboo language not necessarily to make people think unpleasant thoughts but because at one time in the past it was a way to make people think unpleasant thoughts.
The swear remains, but the thoughts can be long gone.
quote:"When you get mad, you look for words that attack what represses you," said Louise Lamarre, a Montreal cinematographer who must tread lightly around the language, depending on whether her films are in French or English. "In America, you are so Puritan that the swearing is mostly about sex. Here, since we were repressed so long by the church, people use religious terms."
And the words that are shocking in English -- including the slang for intercourse -- are so mild in Quebecois French they appear routinely in the media. But not church terms.
"You swear about things that are taboo," said Andr? Lapierre, a professor of linguistics at the University of Ottawa. In the United States, "it is not appropriate to talk about sex or scatological subjects, so that is what you use in your curse words. The f-word is a perfect example.
"In Canadian French, you have none of the sexual aspects. So what do you replace it with? You replace it with religion. If you are going to use a taboo word, it would be anything related to the cult, to Christ, the Communion wafer, Jesus Christ, vestments, and elements of the altar like tabernacle. There's quite a few of them."
...
The swearwords have persisted even though church attendance has plummeted in the past 40 years. Because of that drop, "when the young kids on the street are swearing, they don't even know what they are swearing about," mused Monsignor Francis Coyle, pastor of St. Patrick's Basilica in Montreal. "They're baptized in church, and that's about it."
Last spring, the Montreal Archdiocese commissioned an advertising campaign that erected large billboards in the city intended to shock and educate. Each billboard featured a word like "tabernacle" or "chalice" -- startling swearwords on the street -- and offered the correct dictionary definition for the religious term. Such as: "Tabernacle -- small cupboard locked by key in the middle of the altar" containing the sacred goblet.
"The point was to try to get people not to use the terms too glibly," Coyle said.
The campaign ended, but Lapierre said Quebecers continue to use the words in highly inventive ways -- as expletives, interjections, verbs, adverbs and nouns. One could say, for example, "You Christ that guy," to mean throwing a person violently. "I don't know any other language that does that so well," he said.
The French here also modify the oaths into non-words, depending on the level of politeness desired. The word "bapteme" -- baptism -- is used as a strong oath, but a modification, "bateche," is milder. The sacramental wafer, a "host" in English and "hostie" in French, can be watered down to just the sound "sst" in polite company. "Tabernacle" can become just "tabar" to avoid too much offense.
The oaths are so ingrained that one cannot converse fluently without them, said Lapierre. "I teach them in my class."
I find the idea of someone swearing 'oh, tabernacle' really funny. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The campaign ended, but Lapierre said Quebecers continue to use the words in highly inventive ways -- as expletives, interjections, verbs, adverbs and nouns. One could say, for example, "You Christ that guy," to mean throwing a person violently. "I don't know any other language that does that so well," he said.
The French here also modify the oaths into non-words, depending on the level of politeness desired. The word "bapteme" -- baptism -- is used as a strong oath, but a modification, "bateche," is milder. The sacramental wafer, a "host" in English and "hostie" in French, can be watered down to just the sound "sst" in polite company. "Tabernacle" can become just "tabar" to avoid too much offense.
I'm not fluent in french, but we do any of the same things in English. The F word gets used as all parts of speech and in many utterly non-sensical phrases. People modify to "flip, fudge, suck, screwed, and any number of other less offensive oaths. People will say shoot, darn, POd, Jeez, Gosh.
American English has few religious oaths than British English but I'm not familiar enough with them to know how or whether they get toned down for polite company.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
You are absolutely right - there is still personal responsibility. So do we have any responsibility at all for other people? Do we try to help others in quiet, subtle, not obvious ways or do we not care and do whatever we want to do no matter its effect on those around us?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
"I saw you take his kiss." "'Tis true." "Oh, modesty!" "'Twas strictly kept. He thought me asleep, At least, I knew He thought I thought he thought I slept."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Right.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)