posted
I'm the guy with the plumber's crack and the belly hanging out. I'm sure I've grossed out a few people, but most people think it's pretty funny. Especially when I'm running.
I'm also in the camp of people that would run over and tickle her belly while she stretches. That way everyone gets a laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm also in the camp of people that would run over and tickle her belly while she stretches. That way everyone gets a laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt.
Except for the woman who now thinks that everyone is laughing *at* her...
Seriously, most women I know are at least a little selfconscious about their personal appearance, whether other people think there's a reason for them to be or not. Anything - anything - that draws attention in what they perceive as a negative way is probably going to feed that negative self-image. And one defensive mechanism is to turn that self-loathing toward the person that brought it out... in this case, the tickler. Or the person that tells her that her blouse doesn't seem to fit quite right.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally think you'd be way out of line to say anything to her. I think blocking is the best solution. To me, people don't really have a natural stewardship over the clothing choices of other people. I think it's best to handle it as though it's your problem, and fix it by rearranging so that you no longer have that problem. To me, suggesting that it's her problem is making a mistake.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had this problem with a male co-worker. It started when he noticed me averting my eyes when he started stretching (we work at computers all day). He thought it was hilarious that I was bothered by his tummy. But it's become almost an instinct in me to avert my eyes when I see someone acting immodest. And so now he just says, "Chanie..." and I turn my chair around for a few seconds.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm also in the camp of people that would run over and tickle her belly while she stretches. That way everyone gets a laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt.
Except for the woman who now thinks that everyone is laughing *at* her...
And the person who did the tickling when the woman makes a (extremely justified) complaint to HR.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we please stop using the word "immodest" to mean "revealing patches of flesh?" It's one of my pet peeves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tickling her would be VERY out of character for me. I'd see it in very poor taste to try to resolve things that way.
Question about plants, wouldn't it be eventually a problem if the plant grows larger then the dimensions of my desk? Would a fake one look tacky? Are there plants that grow extremely slow like Bamboo?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. A fake one would be fine - you can get fake ones that look very real. In fact, it might even be better that way - real plants are a lot of work (says the girl with a black, lifeless thumb).
2. If you do get a real one, ask at the nursery for one with the property of growing slowly.
3. I don't think a bamboo would block much of your view - you probably wants something with leaves all over.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go to your local greenhouse and ask to see some easy to care for indoor potted plants. They won't give you a tree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry I upset you, Tom. I guess I could have said, "When I see someone uncovering themselves inappropriately." I was trying to convey a Jewish idea, tznius.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was my understanding of Chanie's "modesty". Tsnius is a part of how I live, and I always translate it as "modesty". I guess modesty can mean other things in English, but I'm not sure of a better way to translate "tsnius".
I'm not sure I quite get the peeve, though.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think modesty is like most choices of personal appearance. Everyone has stewardship over their own, and shouldn't comment or even really have an opinion about others' unless asked. Even when asked, I think it's going out on a very long limb to hazard much of an opinion. I seriously think it's nicer not to even notice personal details about someone else, unless it's to compliment your spouse or significant other on how beautiful they are.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, was that directed towards me? What I meant was, "Seeing a male's stomach violates my standards of modesty. Therefore, I avert my eyes." I'm not saying that his behavior was inherently immodest.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think modesty is like most choices of personal appearance. Everyone has stewardship over their own, and shouldn't comment or even really have an opinion about others' unless asked.
To what extent do you believe this? For you, is this true for any and all extremes of dress or undress?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I've discussed this on a LDS thread on the same topic, actually. But broadly, the issue is this:
The idea that modesty is virtuous is one that I think is highly corrosive, especially when "modesty" is extended to include concepts like "appropriately dressed" and "inconspicuous." I don't think it's healthy to conflate the very real value of perspective -- something that is a virtue -- with an ideal that includes a default assumption of submissiveness, especially given the uneven way it's generally applied to the sexes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my point is that if a coworker had a problem with my behavior, I would hope they would come talk to me. Such as, "Hey, Chanie. I am a strict vegetarian, and it upsets me to see you eat fish for lunch at your desk." And then I could stop and think about whether their complaint was reasonable and whether we could reach a compromise.
Rather than just setting up a barrier so they don't have to look at me.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chanie, not directed at you. I have been thinking a lot about the modesty rhetoric in my own church (LDS) and why is it that something strikes me as deeply wrong about it. My post is the result of all that pondering and not in direct response to what anyone has said here.
mph, ideally, yes. I hope if someone showed up at my formal dinner party in a frogman suit, I would welcome him, offer to hang up his mask, and tell him everyone's in the living room and he should dive right in.
I loved the scenes with the prostitutes in Richard Dutcher's movie "God's Army". Should the missionaries have noticed the prostitutes' attire or the fact that they're human people and children of God? When visitors come to sacrament meeting, what do you think people's response to them should be if they wear clothes that don't match our standards? Should we shun them and give them scandalized looks? Or should we welcome them lovingly and be delighted they came?
I think if someone dresses deliberately provocatively, what better message can I send than that I don't even notice their attire because I'm focused on the person within? And if their lapse is inadvertant, how hurtful is it for me to take offense at someone's person, their body, their self, when no offense was meant?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that a modesty, including "appropriately dressed", is a dying virtue, and that saddens me.
Inconspicuousness and submissiveness are not part of this virtue, as I see it, although there are definitions of the word modesty which mean that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph, ideally, yes. I hope if someone showed up at my formal dinner party in a frogman suit, I would welcome him, offer to hang up his mask, and tell him everyone's in the living room and he should dive right in. [Wink]
And if they were naked?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph, ideally, yes. I hope if someone showed up at my formal dinner party in a frogman suit, I would welcome him, offer to hang up his mask, and tell him everyone's in the living room and he should dive right in. [Wink]
And if they were naked?
Are they hot? *hentai*
Why do workmen insist on wearing pants that show off their butt cracks when they bend over? I saw a guy like that this morning. Maybe they do it on purpose or something.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, yes, naked as well, (if something like that really happened, though I can't picture it for anyone over age 5). Whether to a child or adult, I think the best response would be to say "I've got the air conditioning set so it's kind of chilly in here. Would you be more comfortable covered up? I can loan you a sleep tee-shirt if you like?" or possibly "The soup is really hot and I don't want you to burn yourself. Can I get you a towel to wrap around your waist?"
I just think that would be great a response to someone who was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and if they aren't, if they're off in the head or if it's a child doing a streaking act, it's entirely appropriate as well. After all, they're my guest. Why should I be anything but welcoming and good to them?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone has stewardship over their own, and shouldn't comment or even really have an opinion about others' unless asked.
I think everyone has an extreme situation where they would agree that someone is being highly inappropriate, and our opinion about the situation trumps their right to be blatantly offensive. This doesn't sound like one of those situations.
On a side note, I once had a colleague that would always lean across my desk to talk to me. I was faced with a dillema, look at her while she talked to me (and more often than not get a...full...view down her blouse) or avert my eyes for the majority of the conversation. Thankfully (mostly...I mean, I'm not a saint), one of her female friends at the office had the same experience and said something to her.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: mph, yes, naked as well, (if something like that really happened, though I can't picture it for anyone over age 5). Whether to a child or adult, I think the best response would be to say "I've got the air conditioning set so it's kind of chilly in here. Would you be more comfortable covered up? I can loan you a sleep tee-shirt if you like?" or possibly "The soup is really hot and I don't want you to burn yourself. Can I get you a towel to wrap around your waist?"
I just think that would be great a response to someone who was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and if they aren't, if they're off in the head or if it's a child doing a streaking act, it's entirely appropriate as well. After all, they're my guest. Why should I be anything but welcoming and good to them?
No offense, but I don't believe you.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, there I disagree. I doubt I would be willing to sit through a party where either I'm looking at naked people or trying to avoiding looking at naked people.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't expect someone in my house to necessarily conform to my standards of modesty, but I would certainly hope they would at least conform to general societal standards. Pants, shirts, etc.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that a modesty, including "appropriately dressed", is a dying virtue, and that saddens me.
I think where you and Tom disagree is to whether this is, in fact, a virtue at all.
I admit that I don't immediately see why we should consider being fully covered with clothes a virtue.
Perhaps the virtue would really be expressed as "willing to adhere to society's standards". I can see where valuing this virtue would be good for a society, of course, but that's not really the same thing.
But if I were to move to central Africa, and could get away with doing so, I'd love to work around buck ass naked. I don't think I'd be any more virtuous in that situation if I kept wearing pants and a shirt.
I'd suspect the answer to many for this is "because God wants us to dress that way".
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think where you and Tom disagree is to whether this is, in fact, a virtue at all.
Oh, I agree. Tom said that he thinks considering it a virtue is bad, and I wanted to chime in and say that I think it is a virtue.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, I think, made a good point that has led me off onto a tanget. Specifically the idea of modest dress as a virtue.
We (and by we, I mean puritanical America as a whole) have objectified the human body to the degree where any observance of it (outside marriage) supposedly impinges upon both the viewer and viewees virtue.
We have a whole segment of our society ardently advocating against nudity and sexuality and, to me, it seems that by creating and perpetuating unhealthy taboos about the human body and sexuality, that they give ammuntion to help fuel the industries that exist to titillate and sell nudity and sexuality.
I have more, but I want to get this posted before my meeting...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me there is a marked degree of difference between the following.
1: Dressing in such a manner so that others are enticed by the promise of carnal pleasure as indicated by your behavior and clothing.
2: Walking around completely naked because of climate considerations or because you just don't see the need for clothing.
There are cultural considerations that SHOULD certainly be taken into account.
Modesty is a value because it demonstrates that a person is not the equivalent of an animal. We actually participate in activities that do not involve basic bodily needs. Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter. Modesty shows that a person is restrained and does not just do what feels good in the short term.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to say that, BB, I know exactly what you mean, and I don't think you're overreacting at all. I've got a close friend who does just that, astounding the world with the almost blue whiteness of her flaccid, hairy skin. I've never had the guts to say anything, so I just take my glasses off, wipe them, etc. and time it so I'm done when she is. It's not so easy to tune out the lip chewing or her caressing herself or miss the BO and sewer breath, but I've got the stomach-stretch down! She's got no sense of smell, so I really should tell her about the BO, but... I'm a coward and I think I'd be more embarrassed that she'd be. Knowing her, she'd say it didn't effect her, the rest of the world could get over it.
Posts: 1215 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, BB, comes when you try to decide who's standard of modesty to use. You must admit that the standard you embrace is much more conservative than the "norm" in this country. And the vast majority of men and women are able to converse intellegently and strictly platonically even if the woman's shoulders are showing, and perhaps a strip of her stomach.
I think you and I would probably agree on some standards -- for instance, I think a lot of clothing for female children is overly sexualized and inappropriate. But obviously not everyone agrees on that, or there wouldn't be a market for it.
However I wear tank tops regularly in the summer, and there is often a small gap between my top and my pants. That's acceptable in my office, in fact I'm probably one of the more conservatively dressed. Enticing others to carnal pleasures couldn't be further from my mind, and no one I converse with seems to wonder if I am trying to set up a sexual encounter. I think you underestimate people, if you think we need to cover up in order to be able to control ourselves.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'd suspect the answer to many for this is "because God wants us to dress that way".
I would be an exception to this. I'm agreeing with most of what BB and MPH are saying, if not necessarily their reasoning. However, I am an atheist.
My personal reasoning is more along the lines of MAD (mutual assured destruction). I am aware that there are a great deal of ugly people and a few number of attractive people. I am also aware that naked attractive people would distract me from my work. However, this pales as a factor compared to the fact that the naked ugly people would not only distract me but make it impossible for me to work.
I am also aware that standards of beauty may differ from people to people. I may consider corpulent individuals to be the epitome of ugly, whereas some of them may believe that the majority of Asian people are ugly, and so forth.
Thus, the ideal solution seems to be to compromise and adhere to a solution where people are mostly clothed to avoid causing any problems for most people, within reasonable parameters for comfort. No appeal to God is required.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Modesty is a value because it demonstrates that a person is not the equivalent of an animal. We actually participate in activities that do not involve basic bodily needs. Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter. Modesty shows that a person is restrained and does not just do what feels good in the short term.
To me, this is similar to the argument that without God keeping them in check, people would run aruond killing, raping, and stealing.
This may be true for you, but you have no call to say it is true for me or for other people. I don't need to rely on modesty (especially your definition of it) to do these things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eljay: To me modesty is much more about intent. A toples woman in Africa is probably not trying to find the next liason she can. A girl who ultimately puts on spaghetti straps because she has found she gets more attention from boys when she does clearly has a different motive. Sure comfort, the newness of the clothing, and how everyone else dresses all come into play, but there is stil that factor of, "I want to maximize the attention boys pay me, and I am willing to use my body to obtain that optimization."
I have had girls who say, "I go commando to school because it just feels better for me" I personally do not have a problem with it, and thus everything is fine. But if say knowing they were not wearing underwear was stimulating to me, and my increased attention turned them on, then that is where modesty would be called for.
Mr S: I don't much care if it sounds similar. I am not making either of those arguements.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Could you explain this part to me?
quote:Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter.
To me, this is saying that, let's say I'm having a conversation with a friend of mine in a bikini when we're down on the beach. Under my udnerstanding, because she is wearing "immodest" clothing, I must be unable to converse with her without wondering if we're just setting up a sexual encounter.
---
edit: In addition, I don't agree with this.
quote:Modesty shows that a person is restrained and does not just do what feels good in the short term.
I very much doubt you can draw a strong correlation between long term self interest and your standards of modesty. For example, Jerry Falwell's followers are more than likely to be modestly dressed, but I'd be willing to bet that in many things (e.g. hating people) they very much go for the short term feeling good.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to double post but, I don't believe in impossing my specific standards of modesty on anyone in particular.
I am a member of society, and express my ideas, they may or may not resonate with others. If they resonate to a degree then I have partially shaped the culture of my local neighborhood, or perhaps the country, maybe the world, who knows?
That is how I believe cultures are rightfully formed, it is a whole nother matter how one ought to interact with cultural norms at the local--->universal level.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that a modesty, including "appropriately dressed", is a dying virtue, and that saddens me. Inconspicuousness and submissiveness are not part of this virtue, as I see it...
The only difference between "modesty" and "perspective," leaving aside the "dressing conservatively" bit, is one of submissiveness.
quote:Modesty is a value because it demonstrates that a person is not the equivalent of an animal. We actually participate in activities that do not involve basic bodily needs.
Here, BB, you are using "modesty" when I think what you mean is "self-control." They're different attributes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it's pretty hard to judge people's intent. When you list all those possible motives but still say that the girl in spaghetti straps "clearly" has a different motive, I think you're making a judgment that you're not really qualified to make.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Could you explain this part to me?
quote:Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter.
To me, this is saying that, let's say I'm having a conversation with a friend of mine in a bikini when we're down on the beach. Under my udnerstanding, because she is wearing "immodest" clothing, I must be unable to converse with her without wondering if we're just setting up a sexual encounter.
OK, what I am saying is that if there is a complete lack of modesty, then neither of you would act in a decent or human manner. If you both at the moment felt horny you would jump each other, if you both got hungry, you would not offer to take her out, nor would she offer to help you cook something. You would both just eat whatever was at hand, possibly each other.
This is obviously an extreme example, but to me that is what the world would be like with a complete absence of modesty.
We would be concerned purely with base desires, such an existance reduces us to mere animals, concerend only with survival and reproduction.
Modesty to me is not just about clothing, though I admit then when people talk about it clothing usually dominates the topic. I think modesty extends to a persons manner and conduct. There is a very good description of modesty in Mr. Cards book "Heart Fire" (Part of the Alvin Maker series) I believe where Peggy is instructed as to what a modest girl does and how she behaves. Its very particular to a certain era and country, but I believe that those who live in any time or place need to carefully decide what to them constitutes reasonable and amiable behavior. If it makes the envrionment more beautiful then is good. If overall it debases humanbeings, I don't think it is modest.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I just think it's pretty hard to judge people's intent. When you list all those possible motives but still say that the girl in spaghetti straps "clearly" has a different motive, I think you're making a judgment that you're not really qualified to make.
We are assuming that how I have described her reasoning is in fact how it is. I am not saying all girls in speghetti straps are thinking this way.
Tom: I think my last post indicates that I consider self control part of modesty. I understand that modesty is typically used in America in relation to clothing. Its part of that whole, "They say clothes make the man." I do not use it exclusively that way. But I do believe clothing to an extent can indicate how one feels about modesty, but the two are not inseperable. I believe you could have a modest society of nudists.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I agree with Tom then. I think you are defining modesty as what is more commonly known as self-control. I don't believe that linking the common definitions of modesty (i.e. in dress and as a srt of opposite of arrogance) with controlling oneself is useful or warranted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are topless beaches the world over, where people aren't constantly rutting in the sand. When the norms of modesty went from almost no exposed skin to bare arms and legs in polite society, I don't think it prevented people from behaving themselves. I can go into a bank in shorts and t-shirt and conduct my business without fear that I'll be given incorrect change as the teller, unable to control her carnal lust for me, is stricken dumb and unable to count.
I simply don't think that arbitrary standards of clothing are the only thing preventing people from acting like animals. You give your fellow humans hardly any credit.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
