A Modesty Question

[annalena]

I read something very interesting on this a while ago.

Do men in general even realize how a woman is dressed? I am talking regular men, not sheltered fundies. Answer: no. They do realize if you show a lot of skin or not, but that's about it. They do NOT realize the new necklace, the color of your shoes , the color combination, your new top, and so on.

So, do women dress for men? No. Do women dress for themselves? More so, but who dress women for mostly?

Other women. Because they're the ones who notice.

[bananacat]

annalena,

Men aren't some homogenous group. Some of them are oblivious to fashion, some are really into it, and most are in between. Don't make such broad generalizations.

[lawfulevil]

Women can be totally oblivious to fashion too, like me. Trends are just something that gets in the way of buying clothes because everything has a cowl-neck and I hate them.

Hopefully people dress for themselves.

[annalena]

While I do dress for myself, I find myself more anxious when it comes to dressing for certain events (like first time meeting boyfriend's friends, his grandmother's birthday, stuff like that) because I know the women will be judging me by that. And I mean the women.

bananacat, men aren't a homogenous group, but I swear the majority of them does not realize this minor stuff.

[Constance Vigilance]

While I do dress for myself, I find myself more anxious when it comes to dressing for certain events (like first time meeting boyfriend's friends, his grandmother's birthday, stuff like that) because I know the women will be judging me by that. And I mean the women.

annalena, you are quite prone to broad generalisations. What is true for you may well not be true for others.

Personally I dress for women when I want them to think I'm hot. ;) Otherwise I am dressing entirely for me.

[AnnoDomini]

Ooh, got some answers back from my fundy family.

Me: If a woman dresses intentionally modestly or intentionally immodestly, she's still doing it for men.

A friend: You can't control their thoughts either way. A person who wants to be dirty, will be dirty. One who wants to be pure will pray over themselves and ask God to help them through their temptation, and try to avoid it. I can be around naked bodies and not be tempted. Clothed bodies will turn me on if I allow myself to think that way. Temptation tempts the temptee. So.. wear what you like. So long as you're not deliberately trying to attract attention, I wouldn't worry.

My mother: True. But one is to entice them, the other is to spare them difficulty.

Me: That's a nice thought, but why should we construct something that should be as personal as clothing around men?

My older sister: I see what mom's saying. If you sincerely want to spare them difficulty, then dressing modestly *is* an expression of your personality.

Me: Maybe women should dress for themselves and let the men be responsible for their own eyes/thoughts/difficulty.

Older sister: yeah, but it's not always all about you...

Me: Why should it always be about men and what they want?

Older sister: Um... it's not? Listen, it is your choice. It's just nice when you consider others when making choices.

[Constance Vigilance]

Older sister: yeah, but it's not always all about you...

So instead it's about any random man (of the ~3 billion on earth) who might see you? You're supposed to consider all of them, but never yourself?

Your older sister's part in this conversation is the definition of "participating in your own subjugation". There doesn't even need to be a man around to tell you to be modest anymore -- the women in your family are so well-trained they'll police themselves.

[AnnoDomini]

I'm supposed to consider them over myself.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm supposed to consider them over myself.

Fuck. That. Noise.

[AnnoDomini]

Oh Lissar--I love your furbaby!

[ems]

Clearly, if a woman feels better about herself in a long-sleeved dress and a headcovering, that's fine. The problem with modesty comes in when it is imposed by an external force- the church, other men, etc. Also, because there is a *huge* range of what men find attractive (long hair, short hair, pants, skirts, toe cleavage, boob cleavage, the librarian look, etc etc etc...) there is no possible way that a woman can dress in a way that *no* man will find them attractive at all. It's just not possible.

All that to say, it's not an internal sense of modesty/comfort that's the problem, in my opinion, its the outwardly imposed impossible standard that's the problem.

This.

[jenny_islander]

But trying to be nice to men by dressing modestly runs into the problem of what is modest. Also there is the underlying assumption that men are ridden for life by a ravening sex monster that will drive them to jump on any woman who is not dressed correctly. So men are dogs, basically? They will hump anything that doesn't move away? Then why are men supposed to be the rational ones who lead and guard us poor little irrational women, again?

[kb2]

Ooh, got some answers back from my fundy family.

My older sister: I see what mom's saying. If you sincerely want to spare them difficulty, then dressing modestly *is* an expression of your personality.

Difficulty treating women with respect is an expression of his personality.

[Rachel333]

I just wish fundies would acknowledge that women can be "defrauded" as well. Modesty is a stupid concept, but at least make the boys worry about it, too.

[Happy_Anabaptist]

It's taught that men's weakness is sight (so women should dress modestly) and women's weakness is touch (so that men should never touch a woman.) It does go the other way around as well, that a woman shouldn't touch a man and that men should dress modestly, no shorts, tight shirts, t-shirts etc, but the first way is what's emphasized.

[Guest Anonymous]

It's taught that men's weakness is sight (so women should dress modestly) and women's weakness is touch (so that men should never touch a woman.) It does go the other way around as well, that a woman shouldn't touch a man and that men should dress modestly, no shorts, tight shirts, t-shirts etc, but the first way is what's emphasized.

That's some incredibly stupid bullshit. Women make up the majority of the posters here and we post visual smut on the daily. Gender essentialism is crap.

[Rachel333]

I hadn't heard touch. I have heard quite a few times that thought and emotions are a woman's problem, so romance novels are a woman's porn. I think porn is a woman's porn, but whatever.

[Peas n carrots]

But trying to be nice to men by dressing modestly runs into the problem of what is modest. Also there is the underlying assumption that men are ridden for life by a ravening sex monster that will drive them to jump on any woman who is not dressed correctly. So men are dogs, basically? They will hump anything that doesn't move away? Then why are men supposed to be the rational ones who lead and guard us poor little irrational women, again?

I agree, I mean it assumes the worst behavior out of men too....they're only one low cut shirt away from raping a woman.

But yes, that is quite the oxymoron....men are beasts but women should allow these beasts to control our every move?

[bananacat]

It's taught that men's weakness is sight (so women should dress modestly) and women's weakness is touch (so that men should never touch a woman.) It does go the other way around as well, that a woman shouldn't touch a man and that men should dress modestly, no shorts, tight shirts, t-shirts etc, but the first way is what's emphasized.

Yeah, except it simply isn't true. Nearly every woman enjoys looking at men. It's harmful to force these stereotypes onto women who don't neatly fit them. You've been taught wrong but you're so set in your ways that an actual woman liking to look at an actual man won't even convince you. You've managed to delude yourself so thoroughly that reality itself is completely irrelevant to you.

[Happy_Anabaptist]

Yeah, except it simply isn't true. Nearly every woman enjoys looking at men. It's harmful to force these stereotypes onto women who don't neatly fit them. You've been taught wrong but you're so set in your ways that an actual woman liking to look at an actual man won't even convince you. You've managed to delude yourself so thoroughly that reality itself is completely irrelevant to you.

*sigh*

I just said what is taught, not that I actually agree with it. I don't.

[Boltingmadonna]

This assertion that romance novels are lady pr0n enrages me. I first heard it from my fundy group back in the early 70s, and it's just as much crap now as it was then. This woman I knew was testifying that she'd given up reading romance novels (or any novels at all, basically) after being defrauded by Mike the Mountie in "Mrs. Mike." (Hello, Canadians!) She had decided that having any fantasies while having sex was spiritual adultery. This meant basically that she had no thoughts at all, and apparently no orgasms either, but oh well. All for Jesus.

A few differences between pr0n and novels: pr0n is often degrading to women, and frequently harms real live human beings who are deceived or abused in the making of it. Men have been known to abuse and/or rape their partners or other women while inspired by pr0n. Whereas if women forced anything on men after reading a romance novel, it would be some hot, steamy, consensual hankypanky--or possibly a lovely cruise with champagne and flowers served by the pool. Romance novels are clearly a terrible threat to manly headships everywhere! Men cower in subway stations late at night, fearing that women, maddened by their daily ration of romance, will toss their locks at the men and offer them chocolate dipped strawberries. Oh the humanity.

Also this thing of women not being visually oriented is a crock. I got through a whole year of parent meetings for my son's Cub Scout troop because the troop leader . . . oowee. He looked SO good in jeans. He looked excellent from the front, but when he turned his back to write something on the blackboard, I enjoyed silent ecstasy. Yum, yum. Somehow, I controlled myself and behaved appropriately throughout. Nor did I demand that he wear a long skirt so I would not be defrauded.

[bananacat]

The only reason that the Twilight franchise is so successful is because Jacob looks really hot without a shirt. I'm sure that it would still have some following even if he always wore a shirt or if they picked less attractive actors (Edward is pretty hot too even though he always wears a shirt and his make-up is so pale), but it wouldn't be quite as big.

[Kitty]

The only thing that gets me through the Twilight movies are Rob Pattinson and Taylor Lautner.

Jackson Rathbone certainly helps.

[bananacat]

*sigh*

I just said what is taught, not that I actually agree with it. I don't.

Well, I'm very surprised that you don't agree with it. Since you've never shown any indication of having an independent thought, I naturally assumed that you would believe this propaganda being taught to you too. Congratulations on your first time thinking for yourself.

[DistantStar]

When my brother was about ten he had a steaming hot karate teacher at the Y. I would volunteer to drive him over and watch the lessons just to watch the teacher. Plus he was really nice and great with the kids. But oooooooooh, he was nice to look at. Why else would an 18-year-old young woman want to go watch her little brother's karate lessons, of all things, I ask you?

I'm still convinced half the moms stuck around for the same reason. Our mom had the same opinion of him that I did. Nom nom nom. :D