Can I try and explain the modesty issue?

[gardenmom5]

 

Squicking someone out isn't a crime.

 

just because he couldn't be charged with a crime doens't mean his digusting behavior didn't have a negative impact upon me.

[Mrs Mungo]

I too am getting a bit tired of the modesty threads, but not for the same reason some of you probably are. I am tired of when someone says they think women and girls should dress modestly, several of you think that means not showing 1/4 inch of skin anywhere. There is a middle ground, you know.

 

Not according to the modesty movement. That is the whole point of most posters. There is always going to be someone who thinks you are not dressing in a Biblically modest manner.

[bolt.]

It seems to me that all the reports of leering or squicky staring on this thread occurred to people who considered themselves / their child to be appropreately clothed... Is there a reason to assume that 'that type' of person actually is more likely to pay attention to women/girls with less coverage? Perhaps they like the appeal of directing their attention towards women/girls who *don't* seem to be looking for the attention.

[Heather in Neverland]

I'm just going to say this. Just because a male looks in the direction of a female, does not mean he's thinkin' s*x. He's probably thinking, "I wonder where on earth my train ticket is? Why did I eat garlic for lunch? Oh crud, the light changed, I'm never going to get across this intersection! I can't believe I got a D on my calc exam."

Every time you look and somewhere in your field of vision a male happens, are you thinkin' "Good golly miss molly, that's a seriously s*xy dude! I think I'll fantasize now!"???? I doubt it. There are a lot of times we assume people are looking at us and thinking about us when nothing could be farther from the truth. I've been known to stare off into the distance at Barnes and Nobles after an hour of grading music theory assignments. Many times, when I've come to from my reverie - mostly induced due to too many people being told that good part writing does not include endless measures of MOVING OCTAVES AND NO HARMONY who then did.it.anyway. (whew, glad I got that off my chest) - and someone of the opposite gender just happened to be in my field of "coma". I hope they didn't think I was in the middle of a mental p*rn flick including them, because well, I was mostly tired of theory students not putting an effort into their work! I think it's that way for far more people than we give credit.

As for the "teenage boys think about sex every 7 seconds". That's baloney. I know NO boy who could pull off a decent grade on his algebra homework or score a 30 on the ACT if his thoughts were constantly interuppted with "There's a hot babe, I think I'll mentally undress her!" all.the.live.long.day. Boys are not male goats in rut.

As for the goats, male goats are only in rut for a short period of time and the rest of the season, they are quite nice. So, if we can give some benefit of the doubt to goats, possibly we should consider it for male humans.

That said, we should all just agree to disagree in love or stop on over to the other thread for a good laugh! Bill knows how to write lyrics!

Faith

 

I love you to pieces right now. That is a big thing I teach my kids and my students... That they are NOT just walking "instincts" completely incapable of controlling themselves or their thoughts. That is ridiculous and honestly, they should be offended that adults think so poorly of them. It drives my ds crazy when he hears things like "all teenage boys think about is sex."

 

I'm so irritated by these modesty threads. Honestly. I consider myself modest. When I wear skirts they are knee length or longer. I wear sleeveless tops. I wear tank tops, (mostly around the house simply because of my comfort level). But I don't put everything I've got out there. I am conscious of what I'm showing to the world.

It isn't because I'm afraid of stumbling some poor, poor man who can't control his self. (Though I do agree than men are highly visual creatures--much more so than women). It's because I think it's more attractive to leave a little something to the imagination. I think it's important that my husband is the only one that knows what I look like even remotely naked. I think my body is beautiful, but enjoying it is a privilege afforded to my husband alone. And there's a lot more to me than my body; things that I'm much more proud of.

It seems the majority speaking have been the ultra conservative or the ultra...cheeky :) (I couldn't think of a better word). With both sides thinking the other is wrong. There is a middle ground. It doesn't have to be extreme one way or the other. And the reasons behind the argument don't have to be so unmoving.

I dress modestly FOR MYSELF. I'm not under any indoctrination or anybody else's "rules". I find modesty to be empowering. Much more so than a wearing a string bikini.

 

I love you too! When I was young I tried to get the attention of men with my body instead of my brains. It worked. Too well. I have a very clear memory of myself at age 19. I was attending the University of Michigan and working part-time as a waitress in a bikini bar. Yep a bikini bar. I had a great body and I flaunted and I made a lot of money doing it.

 

One night a customer was talking to me (and by talking I mean flirting, oogling me, etc) and somehow my college came up. He looked at me (my boobs) and said with complete incredulity, "YOU go to college?" It stopped me in my tracks.

 

I wanted to be known for my intellect, not just as a great set of knockers. But since I was advertising myself as a great set of knockers, I was going to have to advertise myself differently. So I quit and I got a job as a waitress in a regular uniform. I didn't do this to help those poor guys from "stumbling" ... I did it because I wanted to project a different image of myself than what I was currently projecting.

 

Dressing more modestly has BUILT my self-esteem... Not dragged it down. It HAS empowered me to be the person I choose to be. That's the reason I do it and religion has nothing to do with it. I wasn't even following Christ at the time all this happened. I didn't do it for my husband either since I wasn't married at the time. I did it for ME.

 

 

[Jennifer3141]

It seems to me that all the reports of leering or squicky staring on this thread occurred to people who considered themselves / their child to be appropreately clothed... Is there a reason to assume that 'that type' of person actually is more likely to pay attention to women/girls with less coverage? Perhaps they like the appeal of directing their attention towards women/girls who *don't* seem to be looking for the attention.

 

 

Exactly. Seriously. If a "homeless man" is staring at your daughter in a sexual fashion, what is your daughter WEARING by this logic?? And if she wasn't dressed immodestly, why are we having so many threads about it?

 

And BTW, that "homeless man" is possibly a mentally ill veteran. Statistically, many homeless people are. You may owe him your liberty. And he may have been staring THROUGH your daughter. Or maybe she reminded him of his child or cousin or wife or whatever.

 

It isn't illegal for homeless people to look at those of us who are blessed. Yet.

[Χά�ων]

just because he couldn't be charged with a crime doens't mean his digusting behavior didn't have a negative impact upon me.

 

You control your reactions.

[wingedradical]

I haven't read the other threads and don't have time to, so it this is repetitive, sorry. But I had a couple of thoughts reading this one.

 

It seems to me that it is a very "not Christian" (as opposed to being evolutionary) to think that men cannot control their thoughts if a woman shows some skin. I mean, according to the the Christian faith (which I do claim as my own), men and women are not the same as animals, who are subject to instinct in sexual and other areas. They are people created in God's image (though marred) who have self-consciousness and an ability to act independently. I think the whole idea of automatically putting a burden on women is not only onerous for women but insulting to men. I have a better opinion of Christian men than that. And since Christian men live in a world where nonbelieving women also dress skimpily, and where said men must "say no" to lust, why should Christian women be held to a higher standard? It's not like Christian women are out there showing more.

 

Which leads to the second thing - someone said modesty wasn't the same as burqas - not the same in quantity of skin covered, true. But I think it is very much the same as far as the basis. It puts the burden on women for controlling the lusts of men because women bodies either belong to or will belong to a husband.

 

As for comparing wearing a comfortable cool clothing to a pop star, gyrating around and trying to be sexy, well, it's apples and oranges. Wanting to be comfortable is not the same as purposely using sexuality to entice or manipulate. In fact, if people would stop focusing on women's bodies as sexual objects, maybe fewer women would be kicked out of restaurants for nursing their children and women could swim and sunbathe with the freedom that men can.

 

I think many calls for modesty violate the principal of what Jesus said about men who look at women in a lustful way being guilty of adultery in their hearts (not an exact quote). If you look at the context, His point isn't so much about sexual matters as it is about heart motivations. And just the same, modesty is not so much about what you wear but motivations (being cool in 120 degree Phoenix weather last week vs. parading down the street in a sexual manner).

[gardenmom5]

I wanted to be known for my intellect, not just as a great set of knockers. But since I was advertising myself as a great set of knockers, I was going to have to advertise myself differently. So I quit and I got a job as a waitress in a regular uniform. I didn't do this to help those poor guys from "stumbling" ...

one scence from erin brokovich that really stuck with me was when she talked about how she would go into a room, and people wanted to hear what she had to say. It was a huge moment for her, as she'd always dressed very provocatively. (julia roberts supposedly had a more modest wardrobe than erin brokovich actually wore.)

You control your reactions.

do you tell that to women who've been victims of assault too?

[Lisbeth]

 

Gently, I suspect the vast majority fo folks are well aware of the foundations of these beliefs. They have both heard and understood the why behind them, but simply disagree. That being said, why should those who disagree be unable to discuss amongst themselves?

 

Also, I don't understand the idea that the freedom to express one's beliefs (however sincere or deeply thought out or whatever) means that the holder of those beliefs should also be free from any criticism, sarcasam, or ridicule. Sorry, but you have the right to speak up about your beliefs and another person has a right to speak up about why they agree and in the fashion that they choose. That's what equal rights means.

 

********

I agree as long as it is applied to everyone. And I mean everyone, no matter how tender they claim their condition to be... Based on gender, race, religion, orientation, whatever. Also, the person criticizing should ALSO be treated the same as someone else criticizing, even if they differ in race, religion, political affiliation, etc. That is not happening in this country now.

[LaxMom]

I certainly wasn't raised in an atmosphere of externally imposed modesty - we all would strip down to panties and swim in a lake or river when we happened upon one unplanned - but my childhood friends and extended family members all reached a point in adolescence where we naturally became more conscious of our bodies, and our comfort levels in "exposure" changed. The (I guess in liberal, 1970s circles) "she's going through a 'modest' phase" <eyeroll, wink> period.

 

I dress much the way Jenna described as what she feels is modest for her. The difference - and I think it's the essence of the whole irritation with the modesty threads - is that "modesty" never, ever crosses my mind. Never. Colors, fabrics, fit, and context all come into play, but never whether my clothing would be considered modest or not.

 

That sounds nice. Really. But have you ever seen a grown adult man leer at your young daughter? We were at a stop light and I noticed the homeless man standing there staring in the window at my 11-year-old daughter. I guarantee you she was not dressed immodestly. I had a visceral reaction to that. Now that I have a pubescent daughter, I cannot imagine not caring if she were exposing her breasts and nipples for grown men to look at in that ...

I once had a vagrant aggressively stop me on the street in front of a theater to tell me I have nice toes. I was wearing an above the knee, spaghetti strap dress at the time. Not once did it make me reconsider wearing strappy sandals. I've had men leer at me in a fire department uniform, which is not the most figure flattering attire and certainly keeps everything tucked and covered.

 

There was also a vagrant who would stand on the median on NY Ave and scream complete gibberish at people while they sat in traffic, leaning into your car if you had the window or top down. I'm pretty sure he wasn't undressing any of us with his eyes, just crazy.

 

Odd people do odd things. I try not to read into what I think their foundational motivations are.

 

I find the threads irksome because of their sentiment: I need a bathing suit, but no, not THOSE standard, appropriate for active beach fun ones because I am not a ho like the rest of the world. Or: *I* am so far above those of you who obviously are seeking attention in your suits, I will be wearing a full-on track suit to our pool party. Because, you know what? Bathing suits are culturally appropriate at the beach and poolside, and there is a very wide range of suits that prevent spillage and mask "flaws" even.

 

You are most definitely attracting attention in your track suit, and you know it. The difference is that you are drawing attention to your righteousness. Self-righteous isn't flattering (or modest) on anyone.

[annandatje]

 

It seems to me that all the reports of leering or squicky staring on this thread occurred to people who considered themselves / their child to be appropreately clothed... Is there a reason to assume that 'that type' of person actually is more likely to pay attention to women/girls with less coverage? Perhaps they like the appeal of directing their attention towards women/girls who *don't* seem to be looking for the attention.

 

[Χά�ων]

  do you tell that to women who've been victims of assault too?

 

 

As a women who has been the victim of assault the absolute best therapist I saw was a therapist who showed me that I had control of how I reacted and by taking control of my reaction I was taking back control. What happened to me was over and done and the perpetrator does not give a thought or a care to where I am now but by my continuing to be upset and to react I was not taking back control and not healing. So in short, yes. You control your reactions.

[WishboneDawn]

I too am getting a bit tired of the modesty threads, but not for the same reason some of you probably are. I am tired of when someone says they think women and girls should dress modestly, several of you think that means not showing 1/4 inch of skin anywhere. There is a middle ground, you know. It doesn't have to be running around naked or not showing ANY skin at all. I also don't know how you all know exactly what a MAN thinks or feels when he sees some female half-naked running around. Are you a male?

I think you may be missing the point of some of the responses. What a man thinks it's his responsibility, not the responsibility of women. And if he's a responsible man with a good sense of respect and moderately intelligent (the only kind of man who's thought and feelings I give a hoot about) then he likely won't even see, "half-naked females running around." He'll see women, other people.

 

Modest dress (and I added dress because I increasingly see little in the modest dress movements that reflects any biblical idea of modesty) has gone too far when it

demands we attempt to exercise control over the thoughts of others.

[WishboneDawn]

do you tell that to women who've been victims of assault too?

There's a spectrum. A look does not occupy the same space on that spectrum as an insult which does not occupy the same space as a punch which does not occupy the same space as confinement which does not occupy the same space as a rape. At one end of the spectrum that the let occupies pretty much all you can do is control your reaction. We don't have the means to know, control, or punish people for their thoughts yet so unless a person intends to walk around being emotionally vulnerable to every nasty or questionable look that comes their way, what else should they do?

 

If you meant (this just occurred too me) that one might be sensitive to certain looks because of an assault then I think the same advice is good, if blunt. It might require the help of a therapist or other mental health professional though.

[albeto]

just because he couldn't be charged with a crime doens't mean his digusting behavior didn't have a negative impact upon me.

 

Irrelevant. Your feelings don't determine if a crime has been committed, and a sexual fantasy is not a crime.

[Χά�ων]

a sexual fantasy is not a crime.

 

Probably a good thing or I would have to say that most hive would be in prison and the rest lying to stay out of prison. 

[FaithManor]

Probably a good thing or I would have to say that most hive would be in prison and the rest lying to stay out of prison.

For certain!

[Embassy]

IMHO, modesty is about self-respect and should have nothing to do with the impulses of others. I cringe at the thought of little girls and young women being taught that they have to dress modestly so boys/men won't be tempted. What happened to self-control? I was watching the Duggars the other night and the family was watching TV. A "immodest" woman was on the screen and a young girl in the family went up to the TV to block it so the boys wouldn't see. These boys were elementary age too. My husband got to hear my rant after I watched that.

[Luanne]

I fully believe it is the man's responsibility to keep himself in check.  I fully believe that when a man does something wrong (like rape) he should be the one held accountable for his actions.  This does not mean I have the right to walk around half-naked.  Whatever happened to (in a healthy way) making a man use his imagination anyway?  It is all out there now.

[Jean in Newcastle]

So. . . don't walk around half-naked. No one is trying to take your clothes from your back. (Just don't try to put clothes on ours if we're hot.)

[Luanne]

So. . . don't walk around half-naked. No one is trying to take your clothes from your back. (Just don't try to put clothes on ours if we're hot.)

Whatever!

[albeto]

I fully believe it is the man's responsibility to keep himself in check.  I fully believe that when a man does something wrong (like rape) he should be the one held accountable for his actions.  This does not mean I have the right to walk around half-naked.  Whatever happened to (in a healthy way) making a man use his imagination anyway?  It is all out there now.

 You do have the right to walk around half-naked. In some places, you have the right to walk around fully naked. 

 

Some people exercise that right with nary a loss of self-respect.

[Χά�ων]

 You do have the right to walk around half-naked. In some places, you have the right to walk around fully naked. 

 

Some people exercise that right with nary a loss of self-respect.

And statistically speaking you have LESS chance of being raped if you are in a nudist colony/beach/campground/pool/etc than you do in the generally clothed population.

[WishboneDawn]

I fully believe it is the man's responsibility to keep himself in check. I fully believe that when a man does something wrong (like rape) he should be the one held accountable for his actions. This does not mean I have the right to walk around half-naked. Whatever happened to (in a healthy way) making a man use his imagination anyway? It is all out there now.

It's not about the man. I don't have to protect his feelings and I don't have to foster his imagination.

 

I don't much care for seeing people out in public with not much on either but an argument focused entirely on men's thought processes is an empty one to me. I think there are better ones to do with what's appropriate in a public space but to keep pinning it on making women responsible for want goes on between a man's ess seems inadequate.

[mamaraby]

I agree as long as it is applied to everyone. And I mean everyone, no matter how tender they claim their condition to be... Based on gender, race, religion, orientation, whatever. Also, the person criticizing should ALSO be treated the same as someone else criticizing, even if they differ in race, religion, political affiliation, etc. That is not happening in this country now.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain this, because this to me is patently false. The first amendement is still in force - the freedom to make criticisms and statements of anyone (including the government, the president, the pope, and whomever else one wanted to speak of) still exists. Your speech may be based in reality, demonstrably true, or based on mythical, imaginary or otherwise way out there sorts of things. The 3k folks and Westb*r* folks can still hold rallies and protest funerals and what have you.

 

You are free to speak your mind or engage in civil disobedience as you see fit. You can choose to be racist or hold prejudices. You can choose to ignore your privilege. You can tell everyone why you think you're right and their wrong. Of course, the rub there is that they can tell you the same thing back. They can also choose not to do business with you, ask that your advertisers not sponsor you, or boycott your products if you're a business or organization. Again, the freedom to say what you want doesn't mean that others have to do as you say or that there won't be consequences for what you say.

 

If you're talking about the ability to impose one's religious/theological beliefs on others for any number of controversial issues, then yes, you are right, that sort of stuf is not allowed here in the US. You can still tell the world all about what you think of these things on your own personal time, though.

 

Are there minor ways in which freedom of speech is being threatened? Absolutley. Are there people who try to limit speech? Definitely, but it's a bipartisan issue.

[Mrs Mungo]

I find the threads irksome because of their sentiment: I need a bathing suit, but no, not THOSE standard, appropriate for active beach fun ones because I am not a ho like the rest of the world.

I never read the simple "seeking modest swimsuit, here is what I would like" posts that way. I read them as, "I have a phobia of showing this or that body part, please help me go with my kids to the pool/lake/beach."

[Joanne]

I fully believe it is the man's responsibility to keep himself in check. I fully believe that when a man does something wrong (like rape) he should be the one held accountable for his actions. This does not mean I have the right to walk around half-naked. Whatever happened to (in a healthy way) making a man use his imagination anyway? It is all out there now.

Rape is NEVER about a man being "tempted." Rape happens from a violent mind that is twisted. You can Ucreate* that propensity by dress (or undress).

[gardenmom5]

As a women who has been the victim of assault the absolute best therapist I saw was a therapist who showed me that I had control of how I reacted and by taking control of my reaction I was taking back control. What happened to me was over and done and the perpetrator does not give a thought or a care to where I am now but by my continuing to be upset and to react I was not taking back control and not healing. So in short, yes. You control your reactions.

I had wanted to clarify my statement, but the board went down for maintence immediately afterwards, and I've been away since it came back up.

 

**I've been the victim of assault, IN MY HOME by a complete stranger**. I knew my reactions and sensitivities were because of the assault, and I could deal with them, and heal from them. It took time, but I healed.

 

the guy who visually undressed me(and whatever other fantasies he was having in the brief time I encountered him) in an expensive restaurant made me so uncomfortable and self-conscious that in future I ended up unconsiously doing things to sabotage my appearance so I "wouldn't attract attention". It took me awhile to figure out what I was doing, and then to regain a healthy sense of myself and appearance and that it was OKAY for me to dress attractively. of course, it wasn't "physical", so there are those who claim it's victimless. (that claim is what really pissed me off!) Nevertheless, it was damaging to me, and I still had to recover. (and before I could do that, I had to recongize exactly what the damage was.)

[wingedradical]

If I were to see a man obviously leering at my daughter (or catcalling), my reaction would not be to wonder if my daughter was dressing or acting modestly enough - my reaction would be to confront the man and tell him to keep his eyes to himself. I would have to be very certain it was leering first. And I teach my daughter to give any leerer a look like she is staring right through them (not a hard look - just an "I know you are there and you aren't important to me" look).

 

Ogling is considered more acceptable in some cultures. A woman in Belgium did a hidden camera documentary on how Arab men in Belgium ogled women and the way the women dressed made no difference. But it isn't just Arabs in Belgium -  cat calling, for example, is prevalent in parts of Latin America. I mean no disrespect to either Arabs or Latin Americans by saying this (I have Mexican relatives and I lived in Central America for years). I think it is just some segments of their societies that do this, just like here in the US I've found it is more common to be leered at by certain segments of the male population.

 

Studies I've read show that there is often something more important than dress that determines if you will be the victim of a rape, and it's this:  the more confident a woman looks, the less likely she is to be raped or ogled. The theory is that men who rape or even ogle think of women as objects. They are therefore less likely to fixate on a woman who exudes confidence. Thus, when you are walking down a dark street or anywhere else, do it confidently, not furtively as if you are nervous. If you are wearing a short skirt, low neckline shirt, walk as a high powered business woman would, not as a woman who is either unsure of herself or advertising herself.  If you meet a stranger, look straight at him, but don't stare or let your eyes slide nervously. Instead, lock eyes for just a second and then look back where you were looking previously - presumably, forward.

 

Of course, nothing can guarantee that you won't be attacked and I would like to give a gentle hug to those of you who have been and say, "It isn't your fault and you are not defiled. You are a person who had a terrible thing done to you and I pray for your healing."

[Rosie_0801]

It seems to me that it is a very "not Christian" (as opposed to being evolutionary) to think that men cannot control their thoughts if a woman shows some skin.

It's not very "evolutionary" to think men cannot control themselves either. Once upon a time, long before assault laws were invented, a woman could have put a rock through his skull in revenge...

[wingedradical]

It's not very "evolutionary" to think men cannot control themselves either. Once upon a time, long before assault laws were invented, a woman could have put a rock through his skull in revenge...

 

Point well taken, Rosie!

 

In my defense, I wasn't implying that people who do not believe in creation have an excuse either. It is just that most of the modesty and "men are visual beings that we women must protect" arguments come from conservative Christians. And I, as one Christian to others, was pointing out that this did not jive with the idea of men created in God's image and responsible for their own actions.

 

Although, I suspect the fact that men tend to have greater upper body strength and the fact that women were sometimes indisposed with periods, childbirth and nursing chores, did in fact make it easier for men to subjugate and blame them for everything during the centuries.

[albeto]

I had wanted to clarify my statement, but the board went down for maintence immediately afterwards, and I've been away since it came back up.

 

**I've been the victim of assault, IN MY HOME by a complete stranger**. I knew my reactions and sensitivities were because of the assault, and I could deal with them, and heal from them. It took time, but I healed.

 

the guy who visually undressed me(and whatever other fantasies he was having in the brief time I encountered him) in an expensive restaurant made me so uncomfortable and self-conscious that in future I ended up unconsiously doing things to sabotage my appearance so I "wouldn't attract attention". It took me awhile to figure out what I was doing, and then to regain a healthy sense of myself and appearance and that it was OKAY for me to dress attractively. of course, it wasn't "physical", so there are those who claim it's victimless. (that claim is what really pissed me off!) Nevertheless, it was damaging to me, and I still had to recover. (and before I could do that, I had to recongize exactly what the damage was.)

I'm sorry if my comment pissed you off, but there is simply no support for the claim that someone is a "victim" of another person's fantasies. Unless there's more to this situation, your perceived victimization was not the result of one man staring.

[VeritasMama]

I'm sorry if my comment pissed you off, but there is simply no support for the claim that someone is a "victim" of another person's fantasies. Unless there's more to this situation, your perceived victimization was not the result of one man staring.

I believe this type of behavior is referred to as sexual harassment, and I've heard of people being sued for less.

[albeto]

I believe this type of behavior is referred to as sexual harassment, and I've heard of people being sued for less.

For staring across a restaurant? I'd be interested in hearing cases like this that actually went to court.

 

In any case, my comment was that *fantasies* do not victimize people.

[countrygal]

Well said. I find this sort of 'legalism' in conservative Christian groups detrimental - stresses the 'laws' are important, not being forgive by grace. (I am a conservative Christian, but against this sort of legalism.)

[LaxMom]

I never read the simple "seeking modest swimsuit, here is what I would like" posts that way. I read them as, "I have a phobia of showing this or that body part, please help me go with my kids to the pool/lake/beach."

I think we must be seeing different threads. ;)

[Audrey]

I attended a fundamentalist Christian school ..... (snip long post)

Quite honestly?  No, you don't have to explain the modesty issue.   We're not a bunch of dumb bunnies.

 

Nearly all of us know about just what you posted and many of us have experienced the same.  Some of us, though, have been able to throw off the repressive, patriarchal, misogynistic shackles and know that life is all the better for that.  It's bad enough when others try to shove legalism and repressive self-shame down our throats, but it's even worse when women do that to other women... to their own daughters.

 

So, some of us are still holding out hope that other women bound by that repression, patriarchy and misogyny will be able to free themselves, as well, and quit shackling future generations with that crap.

[LucyStoner]

I've been on vacation, split between camping and an amusement park with water slides. I've been too busy walking around mostly half naked mostly out of cell range to read these boards but I am dumbstruck y'all have not moved the heck on from this blasted topic in the last week. Seriously. Maybe people should try to be modest about their modesty.

 

I wager that nearly all those I saw wearing very little in a water park in 95 degree temps were not trying to be alluring so much as they were trying to cool the heck off and enjoy the water park. And I can say definitively that I am married to a man, a non religious one at that, who was/is in no way shape or form attracted the the youth he saw wearing swimsuits. For those of you convinced all or most men are, my sincerest condolences to you for not knowing more real, honest to goodness, good men.

[LucyStoner]

To clarify, by 1/2 naked I mean that I wore (gasp):

 

Shorts

Tank tops

Swimsuits- 2 piece

Clingy, thin long sleeve coverups

Skirts that hit mid thigh to knee length

Sandals

 

It was hot hot hot...weather. My usual penchant for even light layering could have killed me this last week.

 

None of the males on this (multi family) camping trip seemed overcome by my attire except perhaps my husband who did seem to place his Thermarest pretty close to my Thermarest in our tent but well, what can, would or should I do about that?!

[Lisa R.]

Quite honestly? No, you don't have to explain the modesty issue. We're not a bunch of dumb bunnies.

 

Nearly all of us know about just what you posted and many of us have experienced the same. Some of us, though, have been able to throw off the repressive, patriarchal, misogynistic shackles and know that life is all the better for that. It's bad enough when others try to shove legalism and repressive self-shame down our throats, but it's even worse when women do that to other women... to their own daughters.

 

So, some of us are still holding out hope that other women bound by that repression, patriarchy and misogyny will be able to free themselves, as well, and quit shackling future generations with that crap.

OP here. Wow. Is the rudeness necessary? The reason I posted is to start a discussion that shows the woman caught up in the modesty issue due to the reasons I listed are doing so from (misguided) concern and consideration. I think in their hearts they are coming from a good place, in other words. I think they should be viewed with compassion and not scorn. Perhaps one day they will see they do not need to live in fear.

[elegantlion]

OP here. Wow. Is the rudeness necessary? The reason I posted is to start a discussion that shows the woman caught up in the modesty issue due to the reasons I listed are doing so from (misguided) concern and consideration. I think in their hearts they are coming from a good place, in other words. I think they should be viewed with compassion and not scorn. Perhaps one day they will see they do not need to live in fear.

Frankly, not being rude and not pointed at your directly, I'm sick of the all modesty threads. It's been discussed ad nauseum on this board for years. At the same time WTM was getting good press from CNN - look up SWBs post - there were at least 5-7 threads going on modesty. If I were checking out classical education and looked on this forum at that time, I would have probably rolled my eyes and made some remark about homeschooling being all about conservatism not education and pursued it no further.

 

Also, as the parent of a son, I'm tired of the statements and underlying comments that he is no more than a bag of hormones who can't help himself when he sees a bare midriff or the curve of a breast. I hung out with guys in high school, I can tell you they weren't all fantasizing about girls - most wanted cool cars and some respect from their parents.

[Jennifer3141]

 

Frankly, not being rude and not pointed at your directly, I'm sick of the all modesty threads. It's been discussed ad nauseum on this board for years. At the same time WTM was getting good press from CNN - look up SWBs post - there were at least 5-7 threads going on modesty. If I were checking out classical education and looked on this forum at that time, I would have probably rolled my eyes and made some remark about homeschooling being all about conservatism not education and pursued it no further.

 

Also, as the parent of a son, I'm tired of the statements and underlying comments that he is no more than a bag of hormones who can't help himself when he sees a bare midriff or the curve of a breast. I hung out with guys in high school, I can tell you they weren't all fantasizing about girls - most wanted cool cars and some respect from their parents.

 

 

POST OF THE DAY!!!!!!!!! Thanks for saying it!!

[Jennifer3141]

 

 

I had wanted to clarify my statement, but the board went down for maintence immediately afterwards, and I've been away since it came back up.

 

**I've been the victim of assault, IN MY HOME by a complete stranger**. I knew my reactions and sensitivities were because of the assault, and I could deal with them, and heal from them. It took time, but I healed.

 

the guy who visually undressed me(and whatever other fantasies he was having in the brief time I encountered him) in an expensive restaurant made me so uncomfortable and self-conscious that in future I ended up unconsiously doing things to sabotage my appearance so I "wouldn't attract attention". It took me awhile to figure out what I was doing, and then to regain a healthy sense of myself and appearance and that it was OKAY for me to dress attractively. of course, it wasn't "physical", so there are those who claim it's victimless. (that claim is what really pissed me off!) Nevertheless, it was damaging to me, and I still had to recover. (and before I could do that, I had to recongize exactly what the damage was.)

 

 

Kristen, I don't understand this post. Can you help me clarify it?

 

So you are in a nice restaurant. A man stares at your creepily. It was so awful that you started sabotaging your appearance because you didn't want it to happen again.

 

Again, the context of this thread is modesty.

 

So what were you wearing at the time? Were you dressed immodestly? Were you alone in the restaurant?

 

Do I have this right so far?

 

What I don't understand is where this falls in the context of a discussion about modesty unless you were clothed as a prostitute, which would not be in character with your personality.

 

You ran across a whacko. You could be in an ankle length skirt with Laura Ingalls boots and a chicken in your arms and I can almost guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will someday, somewhere run across a whacko who finds that incredibly sexually attractive. That's all the internet is - fetish sites and cat pictures. There's probably some nutter (or more than one!) reading this dang site right now and, "taking care of business of a personal nature." But that's not a modesty issue.

[bolt.]

I cover my body as my faith dictates for the same reason we cover the Torah scroll when it isn't being read from - kavod for a vessel that contains kedusha (holiness) [and that kavod is as relevant for men as for women]

This is fascinating. Can I ask, since this is not an amount of coverage that is directly sexuality-oriented... 1. How are the elbow/knee/collar points of demarcation arrived at? Clearly, you would not say that your forearms are literally less holy than your upper arms, so I assume something is being expressed about your 'central' body vs. you more extended body parts? 2. Is this indirectly oriented to, not exactly sexuality, but reproduction? Is it the conception/growth of new life what is considered holy? Or something else? 3. In covering the head/hair as a holy object, is that about the brain/thoughts? Or is it an 'attractive' thing? Or a pride / humility issue? It does relate to marriage -- and gender? Is if about identity / identification?

 

Of do these things have known reasoning? Or simple matters of obedience and willingness to follow any instruction from The Lord?

[Shahrazad]

I am confused by this sentiments.

 

I observe, and teach my children to observe, Orthodox Jewish standards of "modesty".  Regardless of weather or activity, I am covered from below the elbow, to above the collar-bone, to below the knee.  As a married Jewish woman, I also cover my hair.  I don't have physical contact with a man not my husband other than a few specific relatives or in cases of necessity (receiving medical care, frex).  I don't wear clinging fabrics, fire-engine red dresses, or other things my culture would consider improper.

 

But not one piece of that is about considering my body a "sexual asset" or concern about "inviting" ogling or other unwanted attention.  (Nor is it, btw, about preventing guys from improper thoughts.)

 

I cover my body as my faith dictates for the same reason we cover the Torah scroll when it isn't being read from - kavod for a vessel that contains kedusha (holiness) [and that kavod is as relevant for men as for women]

 

I have a sister who is not religious and who dresses very, very differently than I do.  [tiny tank-tops, short shorts, miniscule dresses], but I cannot fathom applying the pejorative assumptions to her that I keep hearing in these "modesty" threads. 

 

She is not flaunting her sexuality, or trying to get anyone's attention... and she certainly isn't inviting mistreatment.

 

She is dressing comfortably and fashionably for the culture in which she lives.  ...and she looks lovely. 

 

She is a beautiful person with a modest heart (in the non-clothing fixated sense) and a wardrobe in keeping with her world and culture.

 

That my culture teaches respect for ourselves and our physical beings in one way does not mean I can interpret her actions through the lens of my culture.

 

...and I think the same courtesy should be applied to me and mine, btw.  When I dress in accordance with my faith, I am not "flaunting" my "modesty", nor am I repressed or brainwashed, or filled with shame about my body or my sexuality.  I am expressing my confidence, my integrity, and my body-mind-soul integrated-ness in a way that matches my truest self and the culture in which I live.

 

How we can collectively keep applying our individual culture's benchmarks as if they were universal and feel we are coming up with meaningful insights baffles me.

 

^This. Even though we're different faiths and cover in slightly different, yet similar, ways, you pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter.

[gardenmom5]

For staring across a restaurant? I'd be interested in hearing cases like this that actually went to court.

 

In any case, my comment was that *fantasies* do not victimize people.

 

 

 

 

 

Kristen, I don't understand this post. Can you help me clarify it?

 

So you are in a nice restaurant. A man stares at your creepily. It was so awful that you started sabotaging your appearance because you didn't want it to happen again.

 

Again, the context of this thread is modesty.

 

So what were you wearing at the time? Were you dressed immodestly? Were you alone in the restaurant?

 

Do I have this right so far?

 

What I don't understand is where this falls in the context of a discussion about modesty unless you were clothed as a prostitute, which would not be in character with your personality.

 

You ran across a whacko. You could be in an ankle length skirt with Laura Ingalls boots and a chicken in your arms and I can almost guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will someday, somewhere run across a whacko who finds that incredibly sexually attractive. That's all the internet is - fetish sites and cat pictures. There's probably some nutter (or more than one!) reading this dang site right now and, "taking care of business of a personal nature." But that's not a modesty issue.

I mentioned originally the dress was modest, but very flattering - re: as other's have stated, men who leer will leer no matter what you're wearing. 

it was long sleeve wrap dress with big shoulder pads (hey, it was the 80's) in a pale pink/salmon shiny damask.  probably rayon so it draped well. I think the shortest part of my skirt hit just below my knee. 

 

the restaurant was in a grand old house and I was coming down the WIDE grand staircase.  (the restrooms were upstairs) the middle age creep was standing at the bottom staring the whole time - he wasn't waiting for me to pass so he could go up, three or four people abreast could easily go up at the same time. I had already started down the stairs before I noticed him.   it was the expression in his eyes . . . . it made my skin crawl.  I've had men "admire" me before, the "noticing a pretty girl" sort of look, and *never* had that sort of reaction I did to this creep.

 

eta: I originally  posted in response to the mom who felt her dd was being leered at by a homeless man, and there were those who were dismissing her concerns as being an over reaction.

[albeto]

I mentioned originally the dress was modest, but very flattering - re: as other's have stated, men who leer will leer no matter what you're wearing. 

it was long sleeve wrap dress with big shoulder pads (hey, it was the 80's) in a pale pink/salmon shiny damask.  probably rayon so it draped well. I think the shortest part of my skirt hit just below my knee. 

 

the restaurant was in a grand old house and I was coming down the WIDE grand staircase.  (the restrooms were upstairs) the middle age creep was standing at the bottom staring the whole time - he wasn't waiting for me to pass so he could go up, three or four people abreast could easily go up at the same time. I had already started down the stairs before I noticed him.   it was the expression in his eyes . . . . it made my skin crawl.  I've had men "admire" me before, the "noticing a pretty girl" sort of look, and *never* had that sort of reaction I did to this creep.

 

Were you raised with a belief system that included the necessity of modesty, and correlated it with respect?

[gardenmom5]

Were you raised with a belief system that included the necessity of modesty, and correlated it with respect?

 uh, no.  I came from a very liberal family.  I grew up wearing short shorts and halter tops in the summer.  bikinis if I wanted.   bathing suits were worn all-day.  (in the PAC NW . . .  it doesn't get that hot here.  I hated swimming at the lake because of the sand up my suit.  and the water was always cold, even in august.)    so loose were standards I was in shock when my mother said anything about anything.  

 

(so loose were standards, my mother was fine with illicit sex provided you were of age.)

[albeto]

 uh, no.  I came from a very liberal family.  I grew up wearing short shorts and halter tops in the summer.  bikinis if I wanted.   bathing suits were worn all-day.  (in the PAC NW . . .  it doesn't get that hot here.  I hated swimming at the lake because of the sand up my suit.  and the water was always cold, even in august.)    so loose were standards I was in shock when my mother said anything about anything.  

 

(so loose were standards, my mother was fine with illicit sex provided you were of age.)

 

By these standards, there's no way you would have thought your dress (long sleeves, below knee) was immodest, right? I share Jennifer's confusion as to how this pertains to modesty, but further, I'm confused as to how unbroken eye contact would compel you to sabotage your self-esteem. That's not a correlation generally found between women dressing modestly and men who watch them for a few minutes. It lends more support to the argument that there exists no standard of modesty to which people can agree is appropriate. It also suggests you had issues that were unrelated to the man, that he inadvertently triggered rather than caused. In short, when you got pissed at my mentioning fantasies don't victimize people, I must have triggered an unpleasant memory. I'm sorry for that, I'm sympathetic to being accosted by unexpected, traumatic memories, but it doesn't change my point that *fantasies don't victimize people.* They can't.

[bolt.]

Fantasies don't victimize people -- but inappropriate and clearly lascivious transgressions of our society's norms *do*.

 

Many people look at one another all day long. We know how to do it without sexualizing and intimidating those who are under our gaze. I dare say that 'some people' also know how to do the opposite. If a woman here was deeply wounded by the *overt* behaviour of a man who was *communicating* that he was using his mind to imagine her indecently -- that's real, and it should not be made light of.

 

If she is just someone who has extraordinary reactions to men who merely watch her for a few minutes, that would happen to her multiple times, every day that she went out in public. This was clearly an unusual and traumatic social interaction -- no less traumatic for the fact that he neither approached her nor spoke. We have 'gut feelings' for a reason. We would all be wiser to trust them more -- both in ourselves and in the narratives we read and hear from the lives of other people.

 

It is a bit off topic, since this event was neither 'caused' by revealing clothing, nor did it 'not happen' because the lady was appropriately clothed -- but it is, none the less, a point of evidence against the idea that fantasy 'never' has a victim. The resulting understanding is that on occasion, indulging in fantasy can lead directly to unacceptable public social behaviour that has real and lasting effects on the object of the fantasy. (When fantasy does not lead to unacceptable public social behaviour, I think I concur that it probably has no victims... and when it does have a victim, technically it is the social behaviour that cause the actual damage, not the fantasy itself.)