The Death of Pretty

[ktgrok]

Am I the only one that was flabbergasted that he wasn't calling for women to BE more innocent, or less slutty, just to LOOK less slutty?

[cdrumm4448]

This whole "modest movement" mindset has little to do with "respecting men" and everything to do with burdening and shaming women.

 

It seems to me you do not have an accurate understanding of the modesty movement, or its purpose. Modesty is about respecting men AND women.

 

I know many homeschooling young ladies who dress with other people's comfort level in mind. They are quite happy to do so; they are not burdened or shamed. To claim that men do not respond to visual cues is inaccurate. Men and women were made to be different, with different roles, responses and responsibilities. They are equally important.

Edited January 4, 2012 by cdrumm4448

[cdrumm4448]

Who is to define "hot" or "pretty? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that a nice guy is just that. Some men are genuinely nice and others are (to be blunt) pigs! :lol:

 

Does everything in the world have to be a gray area? Do we need to homogenize everything?

[Caitilin]

I have said this before, and gotten snark, but I will say it again. I think that modesty, real modesty, is an interior quality and is not dependent on how one dresses. Modesty is sometimes expressed by dressing in a conservative way, but it should not be defined by that expression. It is only in more recent years that modesty has had anything to do with mode of dress--formerly it had to do with one's reaction to praise.

 

As for this article, I would keep myself and my daughters far away from the author and his sons. His gentlemanly behavior is clearly too easily threatened by "loose" female behavior.:glare:

[Mrs Mungo]

It seems to me you do not have an accurate understanding of the modesty movement, or its purpose. Modesty is about respecting men AND women.

 

Disagreeing about the intent is not the same as not understanding. I firmly believe part of the intent behind the "modesty movement" (which is not at all the same as *just* modesty) is the subjection of women. You might disagree with me, but I can accept that it isn't because you don't understand.

[shinyhappypeople]

I have said this before, and gotten snark, but I will say it again. I think that modesty, real modesty, is an interior quality and is not dependent on how one dresses. Modesty is sometimes expressed by dressing in a conservative way, but it should not be defined by that expression. It is only in more recent years that modesty has had anything to do with mode of dress--formerly it had to do with one's reaction to praise.

 

As for this article, I would keep myself and my daughters far away from the author and his sons. His gentlemanly behavior is clearly too easily threatened by "loose" female behavior.:glare:

 

But if someone has the interior quality of modesty, I can't imagine her dressing in a way that says "Hey look at my t****s and a***" If a girl expresses to me that she has "interior modesty" but that internal modesty doesn't have any impact on how she dresses and behaves I'll call B-S on that.

[Caitilin]

But if someone has the interior quality of modesty, I can't imagine her dressing in a way that says "Hey look at my t****s and a***" If a girl expresses to me that she has "interior modesty" but that internal modesty doesn't have any impact on how she dresses and behaves I'll call B-S on that.

 

I agree with you, up to a point, although I don't think the man's response is the woman's problem. And, consider traditional cultures in which women and men wear very little--the women don't do that to look "hot"; they do it because it is part of the cultural norm, and NO ONE receives it as a come-on. However, I think over-covering dressing, so that the woman looks weird and totally different from everyone else in her culture, is immodest, because she draws attention to her physical self, not her interior self.

[Impish]

To the bolded: that's hooey. Plain and simple. That kind of attitude is also insulting to men. It implies that women have to dress to protect their delicate sensibilities. Men are not a bunch of beasts incapable of controlling their rutting instincts.

:iagree:

This whole "modest movement" mindset has little to do with "respecting men" and everything to do with burdening and shaming women.

 

Women are responsible for their actions and men are, too.

I disagree.

 

To me, "modest movement" is about not putting the physical attributes on flagrant display, focusing more on the inside qualities.

 

I honestly consider the plunging necklines and microskirts, etc on young girls to be more devaluing than anything a modesty movement can come up with. It sends the msg that a woman's value is in her looks, rather than in her heart and mind.

 

Forget 'pretty' or 'hot'.

 

I want my children ALL to be valued and respected for their inner qualities, not their physical appearance, both by themselves and others.

 

I've often wondered what will happen in years to come, with ppl who base things on surface appearance, rather than substance, since as we all know, appearance changes drastically as ppl age.

 

(Even w/extensive plastic surgery, there comes a point where you're going to age)

[cdrumm4448]

Disagreeing about the intent is not the same as not understanding. I firmly believe part of the intent behind the "modesty movement" (which is not at all the same as *just* modesty) is the subjection of women. You might disagree with me, but I can accept that it isn't because you don't understand.

 

 

I absolutely disagree that the intention of the modesty movement is the subjection of women. How is caring if your b**bs are hanging out of your shirt subjection? The ladies I know who dress modestly are not forced to do so. They choose to do so. All people have the freedom to dress in a way that takes others into account.

 

Frankly, I don't want to look at anyone's inner thigh, cleavage or rear end.

[cdrumm4448]

I agree with you, up to a point, although I don't think the man's response is the woman's problem. And, consider traditional cultures in which women and men wear very little--the women don't do that to look "hot"; they do it because it is part of the cultural norm, and NO ONE receives it as a come-on. However, I think over-covering dressing, so that the woman looks weird and totally different from everyone else in her culture, is immodest, because she draws attention to her physical self, not her interior self.

 

I disagree the women should have to change their idea of modest dress just because most of the culture around her has done so. Just because most people do something doesn't make it right.

[Lady Florida.]

I don't care for the article. It seems to imply, to me, that women are responsible for inspiring men to be chivalrous. I want women to be who they are. I don't need to feign innocence in order to snag a man who will protect and defend me. I am a strong, capable woman. I am not ashamed. My husband respects and admires that.

 

:iagree:I didn't care for the article either.

:iagree:The article bothers me as well.

Why should girls strive to get men to "protect and defend" them?

Why should girls portray "beauty and innocence"?

 

I want my daughter to be respected. And not viewed as the "pretty little naive thing" that needs a man to manage in the world.

And I want my son to respect women - whether they look "hot" or "pretty" or "ugly. I would like him to look beyond these external qualities.

 

:iagree: And I want my son to respect your daughter. I want him to choose a partner based on respect, friendship, and mutual attraction. I don't want him to think he must be a "knight in shining armor" to some poor delicate female.

[6packofun]

I absolutely disagree that the intention of the modesty movement is the subjection of women. How is caring if your b**bs are hanging out of your shirt subjection? The ladies I know who dress modestly are not forced to do so. They choose to do so. All people have the freedom to dress in a way that takes others into account.

 

Frankly, I don't want to look at anyone's inner thigh, cleavage or rear end.

 

Yes! Women and young ladies who dress modestly have MORE freedom, IMO. They are free from worry about anything falling out or embarrassment or giving the wrong idea about their intentions for the way they dress (there are *always* intentions for what we do, the question is what ARE they?)...they are free from misunderstandings about their character (see intentions...yes, people are judged on intentions and rightly so), free from getting their self-worth from people's responses to their dress or from needing to look a certain way to be popular, etc.

 

People who constantly have to say something or prove something with their dress are not really free, IMO. The girl who is OK with being noticed for herself is *really* free.

[Nakia]

For the advent garde among us, I present Katie Makkai performing: "Pretty".

 

3 minutes of hardcore poetry slam on what it mean to be seen as pretty, achieving pretty, and an unknown future of what is pretty for her yet unborn daughter...

 

 

That's pretty dang awesome. I shared it on Facebook. Thank you.

[Janie Grace]

That's pretty dang awesome. I shared it on Facebook. Thank you.

 

:iagree: Wow. Amazing. I would too except that the F-word might get me unfriended by 80% of my friends. But... wow.

[Nakia]

:iagree: Wow. Amazing. I would too except that the F-word might get me unfriended by 80% of my friends. But... wow.

 

LOL, I put a warning on it. I don't think one offensive word ruins it, but I wanted to warn people so they could choose not to click. :001_smile:

[Jennifer3141]

:iagree:I didn't care for the article either.

 

 

:iagree: And I want my son to respect your daughter. I want him to choose a partner based on respect, friendship, and mutual attraction. I don't want him to think he must be a "knight in shining armor" to some poor delicate female.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

My son will be in a world of hurt if he brings a delicate female into our house!! :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

I absolutely disagree that the intention of the modesty movement is the subjection of women. How is caring if your b**bs are hanging out of your shirt subjection? The ladies I know who dress modestly are not forced to do so. They choose to do so. All people have the freedom to dress in a way that takes others into account.

 

Frankly, I don't want to look at anyone's inner thigh, cleavage or rear end.

 

I disagree the women should have to change their idea of modest dress just because most of the culture around her has done so. Just because most people do something doesn't make it right.

 

The "modesty movement" doesn't have anything to do with specific body parts and ideas about modesty are *ALWAYS* completely cultural. That website that was debated a while back was extremely good proof that you don't have to have your breasts exposed in order to have someone consider you immodest or have someone think you are causing young men to stumble.

 

http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/browse

369 men voted that a swimsuit tie sticking out from under your clothing is a stumbling block. Over 570 voted that any skirt above the knee is immodest. Over 630 voted that it is not okay for girls to wear tighter or more revealing clothes to work out.

 

Those sorts of statements indicate * to me* that it *is* partly about keeping women in their place. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, but the evidence is there for me.

 

Women can never win this game. Why do I think that?

http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/11/saudi-religious-police-to-crack-down-on.html

[6packofun]

Those sorts of statements indicate * to me* that it *is* partly about keeping women in their place. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, but the evidence is there for me.

 

 

You think 12 year old boys are interested in keeping women in their place? LOL The age range for that survey is 12 and up and I have never seen a breakdown in the age groups for any of the questions (unless I missed it), and I also find the comments given for each question VERY enlightening. The young men may think that something is immodest, but they will also say that THEY are responsible for what they do with their eyes and thoughts. Most of them aren't chauvinistic and are respectful. Not a very scientific "study" and I prefer to look at as much info given as possible, not merely the votes.

[6packofun]

Yes, and we've lost the difference between "innocent" and "naive" as well. Heaven forbid if girls want beauty--inner and outer--and innocence projected! LOL

[Mrs Mungo]

You think 12 year old boys are interested in keeping women in their place? LOL The age range for that survey is 12 and up and I have never seen a breakdown in the age groups for any of the questions (unless I missed it), and I also find the comments given for each question VERY enlightening. The young men may think that something is immodest, but they will also say that THEY are responsible for what they do with their eyes and thoughts. Most of them aren't chauvinistic and are respectful. Not a very scientific "study" and I prefer to look at as much info given as possible, not merely the votes.

 

The 12 year old boys (along with other men voting that way) are buying into a particular idea about what womanhood is. That idea, imo, is designed to subjugate women, yes.

 

eta: It doesn't have to be scientific to be indicative of something.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The 12 year old boys (along with other men voting that way) are buying into a particular idea about what womanhood is. That idea, imo, is designed to subjugate women, yes.

 

eta: It doesn't have to be scientific to be indicative of something.

 

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

I disagree the women should have to change their idea of modest dress just because most of the culture around her has done so. Just because most people do something doesn't make it right.

 

I just cannot help coming back to this statement. How do you explain the fact that you do not dress like a proper Roman woman or a like Mary, Mother of God or according to the modest standards of the Elizabethan era or the Puritans in the Victorian age? You cannot conform to them all.

 

I have to agree with the poster who said that modesty in the past had more to do with not drawing undue attention to oneself. Sumptuary laws of the past were written with exactly those intentions. Curling your hair had nothing to do with exposing your breasts, it had to do with drawing attention to yourself and taking too much care with your appearance. Even the Biblical examples give credence to this mode of thought. The women chastised in Isiah are chastised for dressing in expensive clothing and jewelry, not for showing their breasts. Cosmetics, jewelry and bright clothing are mentioned again and again as being immodest.

 

 

Your photo would have been considered and *would be* considered immodest in many cultures because you are not wearing a head covering. So, for you to say, "I know what is right, everyone else is wrong," seems a little...over the top, to say the least.

[Catwoman]

I think we're forgetting one important thing in this discussion, and that is the idea that we all have our own individual definitions of what constitutes pretty vs hot, and modest vs immodest.

 

You don't necessarily have to have body parts hanging out of the top of your blouse and the bottom of your skirt in order to look "hot."

 

You don't necessarily have to dress like a character from Little House on the Prairie to look "pretty."

 

While I'm sure some people believe that to be dressed "modestly," you would need to have your blouse buttoned up to the collar and wear a skirt that comes down to your ankles, many others would consider that to be too extreme.

 

The problem is that both men and women have different definitions of what's hot and what's pretty. I read somewhere once that many men fantasize about girls in Catholic school uniforms. Not the micro-mini p*rn version, but regular uniforms. I think that sort of sums up the futility of trying to figure out what kind of clothing turns men on. ;)

 

Realistically, I think most of us are defining "hot" as being incredibly trashy and showing a lot of skin, while I believe that's the extreme end of the spectrum, and not something any of us would want our dds to become. There's a whole lot of "hotness" that exists between covering every inch of a woman's body with baggy fabric, and dressing like a h**ker.

 

Another important point is that, while a man may be aroused by whatever type of woman he's attracted to, the important thing is how he treats her. I want my ds to grow up treating all women with respect, whether they look "hot" or "pretty" or "completely unattractive." And while some of the posts here have said that if a woman acts and dresses in a trashy way, men will treat her badly, I have to say that I hope my ds doesn't turn out that way. I want him to treat all women with respect, whether or not they appear to respect themselves.

 

Men need to own their actions. There's no excuse for poor behavior, whether it's directed toward a "hot" woman or a "pretty" one.

[Caitilin]

Catwoman said:

Men need to own their actions. There's no excuse for poor behavior, whether it's directed toward a "hot" woman or a "pretty" one.

And I completely agree. No one is to blame for another's actions.

[Carpe]

There are a lot of societal biases that we don't notice because we're in the middle of it.

 

My MIL will say some ridiculously sexist things and I was always baffled by it. But she grew up with expectations that women are a certain way. Helpless is a big one. She always thinks women need help, with any- and every- thing. That woman's husband is a jerk, we need to help her. That woman just had a baby, we need to help her. That woman wants to go back to school, we need to help her. And those things sound great but she's saying it not because of a desire to help (in fact she loathes to actually help) but because she thinks that as helpless women, without support from everyone, they could not do it at all. She doesn't even realize that not everyone thinks/knows women are helpless. And as a feminist she blames society for keeping women down (etc.) but can't see that her own assumptions about women are keeping women down.

 

On the post about US schools never being good, someone mentioned that successful black people leave their neighbourhoods, and that smart women are no longer teachers. And as a Canadian it seems both very racist and sexist. But I'm outside that system. It's a matter of economics and obviously so from my perspective. But not from that poster's perspective in american society (I don't even know who it was, and I don't actually think that they are a racist or sexist person).

 

My point? That article is written from inside a system that values women in certain ways. The author can only view women from within his biases. I disagree with his biases. My (possible future) daughters will not be pretty like he describes, nor hot like he describes. They may be beautiful, they may not be, but they will not feign innocence nor flaunt experience. Just as I do not.

 

The idea that a hot woman has to dress in a provocative way is debatable. I look hot in a hijab. I've been told so every time I've worn one. I look frumpy in a miniskirt. I've been told so every time I've worn one.

 

I don't dress to appeal to anyone but myself. Sometimes that means cleavage and sometimes that means turtlenecks. Sometimes miniskirts and sometimes wideleg jeans. Sometimes it means makeup and sometimes it means scruffy sweaters. (The hijab was for a friend's wedding, which had 8 seperate events to it, and those were the only 8 times I've worn my collection of 8 hijabs)

 

I have never had a problem with being respected, even by men I knew to be pigs. Even when dressed "like a tramp."

 

But like I said earlier I'm not in the same world as the author of that article.

[Lovedtodeath]

The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-death-of-pretty#ixzz1iWKG7CN2

I love this part of the article. This is what happens to so many in the world we live in today, especially our celebrities. I have noticed it and I hate it.

 

Great post Carp E.

[Lovedtodeath]

:iagree: Wow. Amazing. I would too except that the F-word might get me unfriended by 80% of my friends. But... wow.

That is how my cousin lost me as a friend. She said that she wished all mothers would watch it with their daughters. :scared: Not just the f-word but ****able. What does that mean mommy?

[T'smom]

That is how my cousin lost me as a friend. She said that she wished all mothers would watch it with their daughters. :scared: Not just the f-word but ****able. What does that mean mommy?

 

You unfriended your cousin over that? Why? Why not just not watch it? Maybe she meant older daughters.

[cdrumm4448]

The "modesty movement" doesn't have anything to do with specific body parts and ideas about modesty are *ALWAYS* completely cultural. That website that was debated a while back was extremely good proof that you don't have to have your breasts exposed in order to have someone consider you immodest or have someone think you are causing young men to stumble.

 

http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/browse

369 men voted that a swimsuit tie sticking out from under your clothing is a stumbling block. Over 570 voted that any skirt above the knee is immodest. Over 630 voted that it is not okay for girls to wear tighter or more revealing clothes to work out.

 

Those sorts of statements indicate * to me* that it *is* partly about keeping women in their place. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, but the evidence is there for me.

 

Women can never win this game. Why do I think that?

http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/11/saudi-religious-police-to-crack-down-on.html

 

Do you actually know anyone IRL who is part of the modesty movement? I know at least 10 young ladies and woman who are. They dress modestly to save themselves and the people around them from embarrassment, such as a woman wearing a lowcut shirt and leaning over and someone having an unwanted view down her shirt. Happens all the time. And that's the tip of the iceberg. I've seen more cracks on teenagers in tiny skinny pants than on plumbers.

 

I checked out the first website and I agree with many of the survey results. We don't wear tight jeans in our house, or midriff-baring items like bikinis or workout clothes, or skirts above the knee. I don't consider myself part of the modesty movement since most of the ladies I know who are don't wear pants, and I do. I do, however, appreciate their efforts at taking other people into account in their daily lives. And it isn't just women; men are a part of the movement, too.

 

As to the second link, we are not discussing Islamic countries.

[Audrey]

It seems to me you do not have an accurate understanding of the modesty movement, or its purpose. Modesty is about respecting men AND women.

 

I know many homeschooling young ladies who dress with other people's comfort level in mind. They are quite happy to do so; they are not burdened or shamed. To claim that men do not respond to visual cues is inaccurate. Men and women were made to be different, with different roles, responses and responsibilities. They are equally important.

 

 

:001_rolleyes::001_rolleyes::001_rolleyes:

[cdrumm4448]

The 12 year old boys (along with other men voting that way) are buying into a particular idea about what womanhood is. That idea, imo, is designed to subjugate women, yes.

 

eta: It doesn't have to be scientific to be indicative of something.

 

Ah, now we're getting down to it. What is that particular idea about what womanhood should be? And what is its source?

[cdrumm4448]

I just cannot help coming back to this statement. How do you explain the fact that you do not dress like a proper Roman woman or a like Mary, Mother of God or according to the modest standards of the Elizabethan era or the Puritans in the Victorian age? You cannot conform to them all.

 

I have to agree with the poster who said that modesty in the past had more to do with not drawing undue attention to oneself. Sumptuary laws of the past were written with exactly those intentions. Curling your hair had nothing to do with exposing your breasts, it had to do with drawing attention to yourself and taking too much care with your appearance. Even the Biblical examples give credence to this mode of thought. The women chastised in Isiah are chastised for dressing in expensive clothing and jewelry, not for showing their breasts. Cosmetics, jewelry and bright clothing are mentioned again and again as being immodest.

 

 

Your photo would have been considered and *would be* considered immodest in many cultures because you are not wearing a head covering. So, for you to say, "I know what is right, everyone else is wrong," seems a little...over the top, to say the least.

 

I didn't say I know what is right. Careful. Sometimes things just ARE right. But, there are many others today who believe in relativism. I don't. There's right and wrong and very little gray in between. How did that happen? College made me very liberal. Life made me conservative.

 

And, by the way, you have no idea how I dress. I could be sitting here naked.

[cdrumm4448]

:001_rolleyes::001_rolleyes::001_rolleyes:

 

Sadly, this is the type of response I expect on this "Christian, Classical Homeschooling Board" as referenced in a Google search.

[Mrs Mungo]

Do you actually know anyone IRL who is part of the modesty movement?

 

Yes.

 

I know at least 10 young ladies and woman who are. They dress modestly to save themselves and the people around them from embarrassment, such as a woman wearing a lowcut shirt and leaning over and someone having an unwanted view down her shirt. Happens all the time. And that's the tip of the iceberg. I've seen more cracks on teenagers in tiny skinny pants than on plumbers.

 

Maybe we know different people. Those I know dress like in denim jumpers, have long hair, don't wear makeup, etc. Maybe they have stricter standards of modesty than you, but I don't really know since you are being vague.

 

I checked out the first website and I agree with many of the survey results. We don't wear tight jeans in our house, or midriff-baring items like bikinis or workout clothes, or skirts above the knee.

 

Do you wear yoga pants that are tight across the butt? Then you are surely causing someone to stumble.

 

I don't consider myself part of the modesty movement since most of the ladies I know who are don't wear pants, and I do. I do, however, appreciate their efforts at taking other people into account in their daily lives.

 

How would you feel if you were one of those girls who wanted to be a runner or a gymnast and couldn't because the manner of dress would be too immodest?

 

And it isn't just women; men are a part of the movement, too.

 

Of course. They would have to be.

 

As to the second link, we are not discussing Islamic countries.

 

So, modesty is not cultural...except when it is? You have to choose whether it is a cultural construct or not. One standard applies for all times and places or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

My point with the second link is that there will *always* be someone more modest than thou and of course some will say those people are not *really* modest because they are drawing attention to themselves and it goes on and on. This is a game set up for women to lose. And yes, the focus is on women, not men.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ah, now we're getting down to it. What is that particular idea about what womanhood should be? And what is its source?

 

The very idea espouses and implied in the initial article. Women are delicate flowers who need tending and protected.

 

I didn't say I know what is right. Careful. Sometimes things just ARE right. But, there are many others today who believe in relativism. I don't. There's right and wrong and very little gray in between. How did that happen? College made me very liberal. Life made me conservative.

 

Right, this is the attitude I was referring to in my other post. Modesty is a purely cultural construct. To say that one mode of dress is correct and everything else is wrong doesn't make sense to me. It's one area that *is* relative to the culture in which you live.

 

And, by the way, you have no idea how I dress. I could be sitting here naked.

 

Errr, my comment referred specifically to your photo and your lack of head covering. Some people consider that immodest. I didn't say anything else about the way that you dress.

[cdrumm4448]

Do you wear yoga pants that are tight across the butt? Then you are surely causing someone to stumble.

No. The modestly movement isn't about causing or not causing someone to "stumble". It's about respect for self and others, a trait all too lacking in society (as evidenced by the eyerolling and laughing going on in this thread.)

 

Of course. They would have to be.

 

I meant men involved in the modesty movement dress modestly themselves, not that they force their "women" to do so.

 

So, modesty is not cultural...except when it is? You have to choose whether it is a cultural construct or not. One standard applies for all times and places or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

No, actually I am choosing to discuss American society's culture. What in the world do Muslim countries have to do with what we choose to do here?

 

My point with the second link is that there will *always* be someone more modest than thou and of course some will say those people are not *really* modest because they are drawing attention to themselves and it goes on and on. This is a game set up for women to lose. And yes, the focus is on women, not men.

 

You're getting rather legalistic. I'm not talking about degrees of modesty. I'm discussing the efforts of some men and women to return to thinking of others when deciding how to dress.

 

 

 

:001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

As to modesty, I feel that some standards of modesty cause me to feel unattractive and therefore strengthen my depression. Some examples would be not permitting an unnatural hair color, or piercings other than two earrings, no two piece bathing suits, skirts longer than knee length, no cleavage, no beards (which is an issue of attractiveness for some of my male friends, not me! lol) My daughter and I always looked frumpy and fat in bathing suits until we decided to get two piece bathing suits and allow a little cleavage. I have a large bOOkcase and insisting on NO cleavage really limits my options severely. I am an artist and so some of the restrictions on colors, etc make me feel like I am not myself. I feel so much better about myself in a variety of situations now.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[cdrumm4448]

The very idea espouses and implied in the initial article. Women are delicate flowers who need tending and protected.

 

Might you be dancing around the biblical idea of modesty?

 

Right, this is the attitude I was referring to in my other post. Modesty is a purely cultural construct. To say that one mode of dress is correct and everything else is wrong doesn't make sense to me. It's one area that *is* relative to the culture in which you live.

 

Actually, I thought you were one of the people stating dressing modestly through the modesty movement was incorrect since it subjugates women.

 

You're trying to make this into something it's not.

[Mrs Mungo]

No. The modestly movement isn't about causing or not causing someone to "stumble". It's about respect for self and others, a trait all too lacking in society (as evidenced by the eyerolling and laughing going on in this thread.)

 

Then why are most articles and websites (such as the one in question) focused on causing men to stumble? The information out there belies your claim. If you'd like to present evidence to support your opinion, I'm happy to consider it. How *individuals* see it or live it has little to do with the intent behind the movement as a whole.

 

I think the laughing is no less respectful than the posts insisting that women who don't dress according to a certain set of rules look like streetwalkers. I find both views equally disrespectful.

 

I meant men involved in the modesty movement dress modestly themselves, not that they force their "women" to do so.

I could show you a thousand articles or websites focusing on female modesty for every one you could find that mentions men.

 

No, actually I am choosing to discuss American society's culture. What in the world do Muslim countries have to do with what we choose to do here?

 

By "American" do you mean white Christian US culture? Because there are Islamic communities within the US. There are indigenous communities within the US. There are Amish communities within the US. There are Hasadic Jewish communities within the US. They all have different ideas about modesty. *YOU* are the one who said that you reject relativism and there is only one proper way to think. They all think differently. You admit that Muslim countries have a different point of view. Is everyone wrong but you or not?

[Mrs Mungo]

Might you be dancing around the biblical idea of modesty?

 

No. The Biblical idea of modesty is quite different than how it is applied in the modesty movement. In fact, I'm pretty sure that *I described it* in another post.

 

Actually, I thought you were one of the people stating dressing modestly through the modesty movement was incorrect since it subjugates women.

Women can dress however pleases them. However, the *modesty movement*, imo, is focused on *other people*. It is focused on women debasing themselves by wearing a short skirt or looking like a hooker for not fitting into a certain construct. These are different things.

 

 

You're trying to make this into something it's not.

Again, we disagree on this. Your opinion isn't right just because you say so.

[Mrs Mungo]

No. The Biblical idea of modesty is quite different than how it is applied in the modesty movement. In fact, I'm pretty sure that *I described it* in another post.

 

 

I have to agree with the poster who said that modesty in the past had more to do with not drawing undue attention to oneself. Sumptuary laws of the past were written with exactly those intentions. Curling your hair had nothing to do with exposing your breasts, it had to do with drawing attention to yourself and taking too much care with your appearance. Even the Biblical examples give credence to this mode of thought. The women chastised in Isiah are chastised for dressing in expensive clothing and jewelry, not for showing their breasts. Cosmetics, jewelry and bright clothing are mentioned again and again as being immodest.

 

I thought I had mentioned it.

 

cd, You admit to wearing pants, so insisting that *I* am ignoring Biblical ideas of modesty is pretty weird. Many, many people point to Deuteronomy 22:5 as outlawing pants for Christian women. You disagree? Are you using your own judgment there? Might that smack a little of relativism to some?

[SJ.]

<SNIP>

How would you feel if you were one of those girls who wanted to be a runner or a gymnast and couldn't because the manner of dress would be too immodest?

<SNIP>

 

This is what I always wonder when this subject comes up here. I am guessing in those circles women in sports where members of the opposite sex may be present is not permitted?

 

I wonder how I would exercise if I were a part of this culture. I get very hot when I work out and there is no way I would feel comfortable in long, baggy pants with a baggy t-shirt. For example, yesterday I took a Step class followed by a yoga type class (Body Flow). Generally I wear yoga type pants or capris in yoga class but because I was doing back to back classes I wore these yoga shorts with this tank top. Believe it or not wearing those shorts was my attempt at being modest and comfortable enough to work out at my maximum - all of my other shorts are too baggy and would leave me very exposed in certain yoga poses. I surely was not dressed that way in attempt to attract men or anyone's attention. If I did attract anyone's attention they had the decency to not be obvious, rude, or disrespectful.

 

Sorry if this is a side track to the topic on hand.

BTW, Mrs. Mungo I have enjoyed reading and agreeing with your responses in this thread.

 

ETA: I am short and those shorts are a little longer on me than on the leggy model. For some reason I felt as if I had to point that out :001_rolleyes:

Edited January 4, 2012 by SJ.

[Catwoman]

Generally I wear yoga type pants or capris in yoga class but because I was doing back to back classes I wore these yoga shorts with this tank top.

 

ETA: I am short and those shorts are a little longer on me than on the leggy model. For some reason I felt as if I had to point that out :001_rolleyes:

 

I have those shorts, too! And I like that top a lot. :001_smile:

 

My shorts are the same length on me as on the model. Does that mean I'm leggy? Let's just say it does. :tongue_smilie:

 

So do we look Hot or Pretty? ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

I have those shorts, too! And I like that top a lot. :001_smile:

 

My shorts are the same length on me as on the model. Does that mean I'm leggy? Let's just say it does. :tongue_smilie:

 

So do we look Hot or Pretty? ;)

 

I'm only 5'2"-ish. Those shorts would probably come down to my knee. Therefore, you are hot and I am pretty? :tongue_smilie:

[Catwoman]

The women chastised in Isiah are chastised for dressing in expensive clothing and jewelry, not for showing their breasts. Cosmetics, jewelry and bright clothing are mentioned again and again as being immodest.

 

Apparently, I am immodest every. single. day. (Trust me; you really don't want to see me without makeup! :D)

[Catwoman]

I'm only 5'2"-ish. Those shorts would probably come down to my knee. Therefore, you are hot and I am pretty? :tongue_smilie:

 

:D:D:D:D

 

Maybe we could both be "Pretty Hot." :tongue_smilie:

[SJ.]

I have those shorts, too! And I like that top a lot. :001_smile:

 

My shorts are the same length on me as on the model. Does that mean I'm leggy? Let's just say it does. :tongue_smilie:

 

So do we look Hot or Pretty? ;)

 

Definitely leggy, like a model! :)

 

I think we look pretty hot! :D

[Rosie_0801]

I don't want him to think he must be a "knight in shining armor" to some poor delicate female.

 

To be perfectly honest, I'd be a much happier woman if I had a knight in shining armour because 5 years of sleep deprivation have turned me into a poor, delicate female, though I expect to recover in the next few years. Respect, friendship, and mutual attraction are just dandy, but unfortunately some are talkers rather than do-ers.

 

"Looking after" someone can be a stupid farce, with women pretending not to know how to change light bulbs so they can bat their eyelashes at a bloke so he'll feel tough. (Though I suppose that system works for some.)

 

"Looking after" someone can also mean paying attention and helping rather than assuming the woman is entirely in control when she clearly isn't, and particularly when she is crying, telling you she isn't and is begging for help. You must be some very tough ladies if you never need that kind of looking after.

 

I have seen my brother playing the knight in shining armour for weak (nice, but not robust) women. I don't want that for my son. I want him to be a knight in shining armour for a useful sort of woman. Vastly different dynamics.

 

Rosie

[SJ.]

I'm only 5'2"-ish. Those shorts would probably come down to my knee. Therefore, you are hot and I am pretty? :tongue_smilie:

 

I am the same, they are definitely much shorter than the knee! They get the job done though and they are comfy.

[Rivka]

My point? That article is written from inside a system that values women in certain ways. The author can only view women from within his biases. I disagree with his biases. My (possible future) daughters will not be pretty like he describes, nor hot like he describes. They may be beautiful, they may not be, but they will not feign innocence nor flaunt experience. Just as I do not.

 

Well said.

 

He seems to be coming from a worldview in which pretty much the most important aspect of a woman is her sexual purity. If you are (and appear to be) pure, you can also be all kinds of other great things - people will then appreciate your mind, your personality, your ideas and actions. If you are not (or do not appear to be) pure, you are an object, a piece of meat, only good for one thing. Without sexual purity, a woman can expect no respect from others and cannot be imagined to respect herself.

 

What's ironic to me is that people who espouse this worldview always claim that it's the rest of the world that is sex-obsessed.

 

In the circles I move in, women with a lot of sexual experience aren't treated with less respect than women with just a little sexual experience, or no sexual experience. It's just... not that relevant a factor. Much less relevant than whether she is interesting, or kind, or creative, or cooks well.