modest or ridiculous (or both)

[pimpom]

This dress is NOT modest al ALL. She could just as well have been wearing Saran Wrap. Her beautiful figure just pops out in the most alluring manner. This is a screaming case of Holy Nike Jim-Bob. If she wore a baggy t-shirt and baggy pants she'd be 1000X more modest. This is the Defrauding Dress of the century,and many fundie boys will have a hard time (hahaha) thinking of her in a sisterly way after having seen this.

[alba]

Wait, so why are shoulders considered immodest? Is it because they're in the same geographical region as one's breasts? Or is it because if the shoulders are uncovered, that means that a greater overall percentage of skin is uncovered, thus giving the appearance of being more naked/less modest?

I think it's just one of those rather arbitrary rules to prevent ambiguity. My high school, for instance, said that tank top straps needed to be at least three fingers wide (so no spaghetti straps), shorts/skirts needed to reach the fingertips when standing, and no midriff or underwear showing. Simple body markers that make it easy to see what is and isn't acceptable. So for someone like Olivia her personal rule might be similar regarding midriff and underwear, but extend it to shoulders and knees for tops and bottoms. It covers a little more than required by my school (which I think was pretty typical), with easy bodily markers so if she tries something on she doesn't need to consider whether or not it qualifies as modest.

[Miggy]

Another vote for the noticed-the-seam-first watchers. Not sure it is modest when the first place you look is at the misaligned flower at groin height.

[ThatSnark]

This dress is NOT modest al ALL. She could just as well have been wearing Saran Wrap. Her beautiful figure just pops out in the most alluring manner. This is a screaming case of Holy Nike Jim-Bob. If she wore a baggy t-shirt and baggy pants she'd be 1000X more modest. This is the Defrauding Dress of the century,and many fundie boys will have a hard time (hahaha) thinking of her in a sisterly way after having seen this.

:lol: <--- literally. I've just spat tea down the front of me. :lol: :lol:

[Miggy]

:lol: <--- literally. I've just spat tea down the front of me. :lol: :lol:

Actually this is an example for how rules about modesty can fail. Does it cover my collar bones? Yes. Does it cover my legs? Yes. Does it cover my shoulders? Yes now I've added this shirt. However, I have forgotten to actually look in a mirror and just see the overall effect!

[scc12]

wouldn't the Maxwells claim that was defrauding? the flower at the breast,crotch..

[uber frau]

At least the buttons aren't contrasting :?

[ladyaudley]

so odd, she's not a bad seamstress! but that dress is just all wrong. The navy lace one is lovely.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think it's just one of those rather arbitrary rules to prevent ambiguity. My high school, for instance, said that tank top straps needed to be at least three fingers wide (so no spaghetti straps), shorts/skirts needed to reach the fingertips when standing, and no midriff or underwear showing. Simple body markers that make it easy to see what is and isn't acceptable. So for someone like Olivia her personal rule might be similar regarding midriff and underwear, but extend it to shoulders and knees for tops and bottoms. It covers a little more than required by my school (which I think was pretty typical), with easy bodily markers so if she tries something on she doesn't need to consider whether or not it qualifies as modest.

The Ontario government, which is not remotely fundie, recently put in a dress code for civil servants that made it clear that bare shoulders were not acceptable at the office.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/ ... _tops.html

[uber frau]

Those rules have nothing to do with modesty and everything to do with professionalism. There are plenty of things that would be acceptable to the pro-'modesty' crowd that would be entirely inappropriate in that setting. Frumpers, denim skirts and flip flops would be just a few. The same applies in reverse: skirts just above the knee and shirts that expose a little lower than the collar bone would be okay in most offices but would send the fundies packing.

[ThatSnark]

We had a thread on her a few months back, maybe a little longer, where someone pointed out that she had on a very form-fitting top. Word got back to her and she pulled the post and the pictures, mumbling something about not realizing it was immodest. It covered her up just fine, but there wasn't an inch of ease in the top. She has a very specific definition of what she considers modest, and several here (me included) speculate that the Look at Olivia blog is a way to market herself to Prince Getmeouttahere. Her days seem to involve child care and homeschooling for her perpetually frail mother, and I think she's about done with it.

[eowyn1217]

There is nothing wrong with showing off your body with a shapely top/dress. When it veers into skanky territory is when I don't like it...that said, I also had a frail mom and did a lot of babysitting. I also married, at 18, my second boyfriend. Sometimes I think if home life hadn't been so freaking stressful I would have put off marriage longer. I feel for Olivia.

[iloveevolution]

Did anyone else notice that a few months back he started posting lengthy recaps of her Sunday sermons along with her Sunday outfits? The shift felt like her headship-daddy ordered her to use her look-at-me blog to preach to the heathens of the Internet about more than just modest fashion. I feel bad for her sometimes, her posts often seem like she is pretty bored and/or miserable with her life.

[EyeQueue]

Another vote for the noticed-the-seam-first watchers. Not sure it is modest when the first place you look is at the misaligned flower at groin height.

It certainly calls attention to her "lady flower." :lol: :lol:

[Handmaiden of Dog]

If she had just worn a navy blue Tee, it would have looked like part of her dress. But brown? Why brown? It doesn't match any part of the pattern and so makes the Tee far more noticeable.

[ThatSnark]

There is nothing wrong with showing off your body with a shapely top/dress. When it veers into skanky territory is when I don't like it...that said, I also had a frail mom and did a lot of babysitting. I also married, at 18, my second boyfriend. Sometimes I think if home life hadn't been so freaking stressful I would have put off marriage longer. I feel for Olivia.

I feel for her, too. I don't have any "pet fundies," so to speak, but I wish only the best for her-- it's clear her only family-acceptable way out is through marriage, and I hope that her family will let her go when the time comes. She's an oldest daughter of many children. Her mother has a shifting illness that seems to be something like chronic fatigue syndrome, though in my snarkier moments I think it's that she's allergic to patriarchy. The brunt of household management, child care, and homeschooling seems to fall on Olivia and the sisters close to her in age, and the blogs are her way to connect with the rest of the world. I'd be stabby if I were her, so I'm glad she's able to find some solace in friends, clothes, and writing.

[bananacat]

There is nothing wrong with showing off your body with a shapely top/dress. When it veers into skanky territory is when I don't like it...that said, I also had a frail mom and did a lot of babysitting. I also married, at 18, my second boyfriend. Sometimes I think if home life hadn't been so freaking stressful I would have put off marriage longer. I feel for Olivia.

Meh, "skanky" is completely arbitrary.

[Emme]

From her comments about head covering "My thoughts on the married/not married thing is that even now when I'm not married, I am still under authority-- my dad's. The creation order shows us that women are always to be under the authority of the man in their lives, so why not show that with a headcovering?"

VOMIT!

edited to add: This girl is confusing modest with long and covering. Her shit is NOT modest. It's TIGHT and form fitting! She's got a nice body.