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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between an open house - letting people look - and letting people touch or "rummage through" things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
