Views on modesty (potentially CC)

[justamouse]

Bad Catholic had an awesome 4 part blog post on the modesty issue, and he particularly ripped apart the Modesty for the Men's Sake aspect that you hear so often.

 

Modest is Not Hottest

 

Things Modesty Hasn't a Damn Thing to Do With.

 

Modesty is Honesty

 

Modesty Sets Fire

 

It is Catholic, so, Caveat Emptor.

 

(fun tidbit. Marc, the author, is a student at Franciscan University of Stubenville, writes for Patheos, and was homeschooled. )

 

ETA, He actually has a very good post on Purity also, which I think is the thing that many other Christian groups are trying to protect with this fence of Modesty. But, when even the idea of purity is wrongly defined and therefore almost . .. can't think of the word I want...a wrong idea passed down...pangenetic? The definition of purity is not not having sex until you're married, which is what these types of groups all try and say it is. So they equate modesty and purity with *only* sexuality, which they are not.

 

So, another good post, Is Female Purity Bullshit.

[MamaSheep]

One thing that genuinely puzzles me is why modesty is so often discussed as a female-only issue, and/or as applying primarily to people in a particular age range. After growing up being taught that modesty is for boys as much as girls, for children, teens, and adults, I sometimes have a hard time figuring out how to participate in a conversation that approaches modesty as something that WOMEN do or don't do because of its effects on men. It's kind of a foreign concept to me.

 

I mean, yes, to some extent the way we dress does influence the way others view us and treat us. For example, I have IEP meetings for both of my kids with professionals at the school, and I help run an autism themed parents' support group. In both of these venues I have noticed that people act and speak to me differently when I am dressed in "professional" clothing and have my hair and make-up done than they do on the occasions when I dash in wearing jeans with my hair stuffed in a ponytail and no make-up on. Actually, I frequently dress "down" for the parent meetings intentionally because often the parents just really need to talk very informally to someone they feel can relate to them, and dressing in a very "professional" manner seems to present somewhat of a barrier to that. Our school district representative who so kindly attends on her own time without getting paid for it dresses more professionally, and this helps people feel like she really does have the clout to help them in navigating the challenges that come up at school. It can be a subtle thing, but it's definitely real.

 

And the way we outwardly present our sexuality (and we are all sexual beings, and we all present our sexuality to the world in SOME way because it's part of who we are), also really does influence other people. I think it's a bit naive to think it doesn't, or even that it shouldn't. It's nice to have clues about what's going on in a person's head. They're useful. And I do think that it's just courteous for women and girls to dress, speak, and behave in ways that are not sexually aggressive toward men, AND for men to dress, speak, and act in ways that are not sexually aggressive toward women. In my opinion it shows respect for both sexes as complete human beings with skills, hobbies, opinions, knowledge, sense of humor, food preferences, etc., and not just as physical commodities.

 

But the fact that the way we speak, behave, and dress has some influence on what other people think about us and how they behave toward us does not make us RESPONSIBLE for what other people think or how they act. A person, male or female, can certainly choose to redirect their own thoughts and to choose their own behavior. Women are not responsible for what men think about them--but they do have some power to influence that (at least with rational, reasonable, regular men; predators are a whole other ball of wax), and they should use that power responsibly. Similarly, men are not responsible for what women think about them, but they do have some power of influence and they should use that power responsibly too. In other words, I do think that I am responsible for how I choose to intentionally exert influence on other people, and how I choose to respond to their attempts to influence me (just because they offer an invitation, that doesn't mean I have to accept). I don't think that I am responsible for the choices other people make about responding to my influence (I can persuade, but they still make the choice), or about how they choose to attempt to influence others.

 

I like that my church teaches modesty for both males and females, and not just for teens. I particularly like that modesty is taught not just as a mode of dress and grooming, but as an attitude that is expressed in our clothing choices and personal hygiene, AND also in our behavior and the way we speak. And I like that for my church "modesty" is not just about "sex", it's about showing respect, and having enough humility to share the spotlight, and not being offensive just for attention, and valuing your own body. I also like that the church offers general guidelines for modest dress, behavior, and language, so that we can all be more or less on the same page within that community. I think having objective guidelines (that still leave a great deal of room for a very wide range of personal taste and expression and take into account differences in circumstances and activities) reduces arguments about whose personal, subjective preferences are "right" and whose are "wrong" and blah blah blah (doesn't eliminate them, of course, people being people and all, but I think it helps prune it down a bit). People can still choose whether to adopt those standards personally, or not, but this way at least they are aware of what the community standards are and they know how they will be perceived and can make a conscious choice about it instead of inadvertently stumbling around giving people an unintentional impression one way or the other.

 

For me, personally, modest dress has a lot to do with the fact that I view my body as a temple. In the Biblical model for a temple, in the portable tabernacle and the permanent temples built in Jerusalem, there were differing levels of access. Anyone could view the walls of the temple from the outside. The people could congregate in the main courtyard. The inner area, the "Holy Place" had a more controlled level of access (mostly priests, I think, but it's been a while since I studied specifics), and only the high priest was granted access to the innermost sanctum, the "Holy of Holies". To me, the manner in which I dress is a similar controlling of access. Certain of my "bits" are accessible to the general public. I only grant access to other bits to those who also consider those bits and their uses to be sacred. And the most intimate forms of contact with my body are reserved for one person of my own choosing who is willing to live a sort of "priestly" lifestyle, so to speak. So the way I choose to dress is in a way a religious offering. And yes, I am aware that there are personal and cultural differences in what other people with think about which "bits" of me I put on public display. But I can't control what they think. Some people, I'm sure, stood outside the temple wall in Jerusalem and thought all sorts of inappropriate things about the temple. Some people even saw the temple as a challenge to the extent that they assaulted it, tore down the walls, and profaned the Holy of Holies. (Which was not the Temple's fault, btw.) There are going to be some people who see modest dress as a sexual challenge. There are some people who only see bodies as sexual objects, and not as temples (some of these will respond by flaunting their body and ogling the bodies of others; some will respond by obsessively covering their bodies and avoiding any glimpse of the bodies of others). I can't help that. I don't have any control over their thoughts and attitudes. I can still continue to worship as I choose, including in my manner of dress and my attitude toward my own body (and the bodies of others, which I also consider sacred as well as utilitarian). And yes, I understand that other people are operating from other paradigms, and that's their business, not mine.

 

Anyway....maybe a little more religious content than you were looking for. But for me, modest dress is one expression of my personal religious views. I don't expect the same expression from people with different religious views.

[HappyCrazyMama]

I like Elizabeth Ester's take. Committing P*rnography with Your Life; How Modesty Rules Hurt Men and Women.

[Laurie4b]

But don't censor your choices to the point of being restrictive in an ineffective attempt to "help" men. I don't care what anyone says. Long culottes are not ideal or efficient for shooting hoops or spiking a volleyball.

 

 

On the other hand, when ds played volleyball, the guys DID wear the male equivalent of long culottes (long loose shorts to their knees) so why is that what male volleyball players wear and the girls wore tight shorts so short the curve of their lower butts showed? If long loose shorts are inherently inefficient for that sport, why weren't the boys in tight short shorts? That's a genuine question. My take is that it's about objectifying the young girls' bodies.

[LucyStoner]

On the other hand, when ds played volleyball, the guys DID wear the male equivalent of long culottes (long loose shorts to their knees) so why is that what male volleyball players wear and the girls wore tight shorts so short the curve of their lower butts showed? If long loose shorts are inherently inefficient for that sport, why weren't the boys in tight short shorts? That's a genuine question. My take is that it's about objectifying the young girls' bodies.

 

 

I like to play basketball and excess fabric around my legs drives me total insane. I am also yet to see culottes that seem to be made of a wicking sports type fabric. As for the clown pants that men are wearing these days to play ball and swim? To each their own but I think they look like hapless clowns. I agree that team uniforms for women shouldn't mandate short shorts. Not long before I started playing softball in middle school, the girls in my league pressed for and got the short uniforms eliminated and we all just wore baseball pants for boys in our size after that.

[Laurie4b]

 

I like to play basketball and excess fabric around my legs drives me total insane. I am also yet to see culottes that seem to be made of a wicking sports type fabric. As for the clown pants that men are wearing these days to play ball and swim? To each their own but I think they look like hapless clowns. I agree that team uniforms for women shouldn't mandate short shorts. Not long before I started playing softball in middle school, the girls in my league pressed for and got the short uniforms eliminated and we all just wore baseball pants for boys in our size after that.

 

I'm talking about the modesty equivalent since that's what this conversation is about. I wasn't referring to fabric.

 

Guys uniforms also mandate that they wear that style. I agree with you that it's dumb and unattractive. The shorts guys used to wear were somewhat shorter than now (but never the length of girl volleyball players') and had a lot less fabric than they have now. I have no doubt they were more comfortable then. However, I think if the clown shorts were proven to affect performance, they wouldn't wear them. (ie swimming speedos come to mind. I've always had an "ick" reaction to those, but they were in their day about performance.)

 

Kudos to your softball team for getting themselves into baseball pants. Were you allowed to slide? Can't imagine doing that in shorty shorts!

[Shamzanne]

Okay, now I have to ask......

 

Was it KMBC by any chance?

 

Oh my gotchi . . . yes! I have never found anyone who has heard of KMBC before. It is teeny tiny. Personal experience? Crazy!

[alpidarkomama]

That's a Jewish company that makes swimsuits similar to what I wear, except I happen to purchase mine elsewhere. You may find them odd, but in our orthodox community it is not. When I look at a Christian modest clothing website, it is also very different from what I am accustomed to. We may have differing ideas of what is a modest swimsuit, but I can assure you it is not to draw screaming attention to ourselves! You wouldn't find me in my swimsuit on a mixed beach anyway. There are cultural differences that lead to assumptions.

 

 

Laura,

 

If you mean some thing like a rash guard and swim shorts, then no, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking more along the lines of some of the images available here: http://modestswimwear4u.com/. I'm not at all saying its gotta be, paraphrasing Eddie Izard, "bikinis or death;" but rather when people are wearing clothing whose whole PURPOSE is to appear to shout "look at me, I'm modest!!!!", it is rather a self-defeating proposition. (Unfortunately, I think that this falls rather into the same category as p---ography, in that you know it when you see it. ;))

[TXBeth]

I haven't finished the thread quite yet, but I have one comment about the modest swimsuit links.

 

Are people really that naive to think a guy's temptation to lust is going to be affected AT ALL by a girl wearing a cute one-piece instead of a bikini? How stupid. I don't wear bikinis because 1) I am uncomfortable showing that much skin; it feels like underwear to me, and 2) I am too lazy to shave that much. By I don't find them inherently less modest than one piece swimsuits. I think modesty has much more to do with attitude and demeanor than with a few inches of extra fabric.

[FaithManor]

Oh my gotchi . . . yes! I have never found anyone who has heard of KMBC before. It is teeny tiny. Personal experience? Crazy!

 

KMBC, BINGO!

 

There are a bunch of young men and women from this area that have attended. I wish I could say we've had a solid, positive experience getting to know them. In three of the seven couples that we know who met and married their spouses while at the institution, we fear for the physical safety of the wives and despite what is happening to them, they've been conditioned to believe they just have to take it and if they were more perfect, more submissive, more long suffering, and less inherently sinful, the abuse would stop. ALL failures on the male's part is exclusively the fault of the wife, period. Their approach to parenting has a very "Pearl" feel to it though we've not seen or heard of spanking/hitting small babies or using plumbing line on toddlers.

 

What scares me is that three young people from the local high school enrolled there last year and now, they just give us this cultish vibe..."I've been assimilated by the Borg" kind of thing. They were pretty neat kids when they left, and now talking to them is like talking to "seven of nine" when she first came aboard the Enterprise. (Referencing Star Trek Voyager here because I'm trying to figure out how to convey the idea I'm trying to relate.) They left seemingly capable of thinking for themselves, and now they are little parrots reflecting back a bunch of beliefs that they did not believe when they left here. In one short year, they've completely and utterly changed in disturbing ways. It's as if their own personalities have totally disappeared.

 

The modesty rules at KMBC are pretty tight. Apparently, they were MUCH tighter during the 80's and 90's and have since loosened. :huh:

 

Who knows, maybe we've only met the anomalies, and it's not as bad as we think. I can tell you that even if it is, the impression these people have made on us is scary.

 

Faith

[Rivka]

I don't remember if I've shared this article here before or not, but it always comes to my mind when modesty is discussed on the Hive.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/02/who-are-the-real-babies-house-proofing-and-modesty.html

 

I was raised on the Pearls’ disciplinary methods. The Pearls teach that you don’t child-proof your house, you house-proof your child. As soon as a child is old enough to move around, say nine or ten months, you teach her what not to touch. If she reaches for a laptop left out on the couch, you tell her “no†and give her a little slap on the hand. If she does it again, you repeat, over and over, until she eventually learns not to touch it.

 

I was also raised on the modesty teachings of the purity culture. I was taught that women must be careful what they wear so as not to lead men astray into sexual thoughts. Women should cover their bodies to protect the men around them from temptation.

 

Blogger Biblical Personhood pointed out in an excellent blog post not too long ago that there is a contradiction at work here. Babies are expected to have self-control, but men are not. I’m not sure how I didn’t see this contradiction growing up!

[*Lulu*]

 

 

Oh my gotchi . . . yes! I have never found anyone who has heard of KMBC before. It is teeny tiny. Personal experience? Crazy!

 

 

My husband comes from a very conservative evangelical Christian background and grew up in KY. We attended a Christian liberal arts university in another state, but crossed paths with KMBC recruitment teams as part of our work at our university. Since graduating we have continued to run across thier teams at my in-laws church events* and several people DH grew up with have ended up attending there.

 

What you said confirms my impressions of them during the 90's.

 

I also share Faith's experience of "Borg speak" when talking to a few of the young ladies I know after they have spent a year or two there.

 

The most negative thing I have personally experienced from thier graduates is the pushing of my in-laws' church district in a more conservative direction. The district had been gradually moving in a less conservative direction, even allowing women to wear pants outside of services, for several years; now the district is experiencing an influx of both lay members and preachers who have attended KMBC and, IMO, the tone of the district is starting to turn again.

 

 

*When we visit from out of state making the rounds of church events is one of the ways they show off the grand kids.

[Shamzanne]

I also share Faith's experience of "Borg speak" when talking to a few of the young ladies I know after they have spent a year or two there.

KMBC, BINGO!

 

There are a bunch of young men and women from this area that have attended. I wish I could say we've had a solid, positive experience getting to know them. In three of the seven couples that we know who met and married their spouses while at the institution, we fear for the physical safety of the wives and despite what is happening to them, they've been conditioned to believe they just have to take it and if they were more perfect, more submissive, more long suffering, and less inherently sinful, the abuse would stop. ALL failures on the male's part is exclusively the fault of the wife, period. Their approach to parenting has a very "Pearl" feel to it though we've not seen or heard of spanking/hitting small babies or using plumbing line on toddlers.

There are wonderful, well-intentioned people at KMBC. But there is also rampant anti-intellectualism. I am an Oregonian (we tend to value dynamic thinking) and I didn't fit in very well! I got in trouble a lot and refused to blindly obey certain rules. They like people who will just follow the program and not ask too many questions.

[Joanne]

IMO, "modestly" is simply patriarchy in another suit. Simply another way to shame and demean women, their sexuality, their energy and passion. It does not protect women (or men) but strips them of rich, vibrant living. It actually *elevates* the role and importance of sex rather than diffuses it.

 

Sexuality and passion rock; why do we manufacture Gods so afraid of the creation He created?

 

Modesty implies men are myopic lusting fools.