Friday, June 28, 2013

Modesty

So, I want to talk about something that's a recurring popular issue and I'm probably going to get into hot water about it, too. See, I'm going to talk about modesty... from a guy's perspective.

Now, I've read many blogs and articles from the perspectives of religious fundamentalists, femininists, pop culture writers, clothing designers, and young, modern Christian women. I've seen articles claiming it's the guy's responsibility and some saying it's the ladies' responsibility, but they're usually all from a lady's perspective (with exception to certain fundamentalist voices staunchly proclaiming that it is the ladies' responsibility).

What I have not heard, however, is the perspective of a conservative, Christian, 20-something guy. Hence, this blog.

The three main views I have found are:
For any of you caught off-guard at the third, so was I, but I digress.

I want you to take a look at that first link, the Bible passage. It's one often used to discuss modesty and often, it's used heavy-handedly. I want to draw your attention to one phrase, five words, that stands out to me: "... with decency and good sense..."

Well, as we all know, decency means conforming to a standard of respectability, right? Well let's also tale the word apart. Decency can also mean "being decent" (decent, of course meaning appropriate, marked by moral integrity, conforming to standards of propriety, etc). Additionally, good sense means, well, good sense.

Now, let's look at the issue. The most common reason Christians advocate modesty is to prevent a man from lusting and falling into sin (that's the common, layman's opinion anyways). The first feminist perspective is a reaction to this idea, saying that modesty is one of men's ways of impressing their dominance on women and the second feminist perspective is a reaction to the first saying, "It didn't work; women are more marginalized and mistreated, especially sexually."

So, whose responsibility is it, men's or women's?

I say both.

Men, frankly, you are told to stay away from lust by Christ Himself when He equated lust with committing adultery.

Women, how can I put this? Let me give you an illustration. Let's use the stereotype that women love chocolate. If a woman is trying to avoid having chocolate, it can be fairly easy if she only sees chocolate once or twice during the day. Conversely, if every person she passes throughout the day is carrying chocolate and a sign saying "Free Chocolate," it become so much more likely that her defenses will be worn through and she'll break down and eat some chocolate.

What I'm trying to say is that men love the female form and, unfortunately, far too many of us  try, covertly or overtly, to ogle, peer at, admire, stare at it. This is wrong, I will admit that; it dehumanizes women and demeans them in the men's minds. Then there are the few, the [sometimes] strong who try their very hardest to look each woman they see in the eye and only the eye. I consider myself one such man.

It's hard. It's even harder when talking to or seeing a woman wearing, for example, a top with a large decolletage or clothes that show every "hidden" curve. It's hardest when a fair majority of women are wearing such clothes. Even business/work clothes show or "hint" at the woman's entire body and let's not even start on the beach!* 

It's not just about the clothes, though. Actions play a significant role, too. Remember the small fact that people were offering chocolate in the story? An attitude of immodesty makes it just as hard, if not more so, for guys.

How, then, does being free from modesty empower women? If anything, it makes women more victims to men's lusts and desires at the same time as it wears away at men's defenses and, after the wall has fallen (if it was even there to begin with), it often feeds men's lusts.** It strongly promotes the objectification of women (how many centrefolds are fully, if not modestly, clothed and are conducting themselves?) and fails to place women on even footing. 

That's not the freedom and equality for women that feminists of yore were seeking and I'd be willing to bet it's not what the average woman on the street desires. So, feel free to dress up. Make yourself look beautiful, if you so desire, but be conscientious of how and why you do so. At the same time, let's not deride anyone who decides to go to extremes to cover up. Frump is such an ugly word. And men, the same goes for you, too. How we dress and act can be just as bad.

So, there's the good sense. Now, men and women, let us conduct ourselves and clothe ourselves with decency. That means:
  • Men, don't look.
  • Ladies, please don't show.
  • Men, don't show.
  • Ladies, don't look.
  • Men, compose yourselves as would a gentleman, seeking not one's own benefit at the expense of a lady. (i.e. don't take advantage of a woman)
  • Ladies, assume the bearing of ladyhood and act not in a manner provoking ungentlemanly behaviour.
  • Men, be a man and don't act in such a way to make a woman act in an unladylike fashion (I mean this in two ways, men: don't provoke her to lust and don't make her feel she has to fight for her life or dignity. If she feels unsafe or is saying "No!", stop!)
  • Ladies, please don't act in such a way as to take advantage of a man.
Modesty isn't a set of strictures (oh the irony), but a lifestyle. It's acknowledging the failings of the people around you and acting in such a way as to accommodate and uplift them. If you don't mind drinking alcohol, but you're with someone who does, then don't drink. If you're dining with a Jew or Muslim, don't eat pork. It's common courtesy. I'm just asking that ladies and men would do the same with respect to how they dress and act.

*See Evolution of the Swimsuit, by Jessica Rey
**I'm not saying immodesty causes sexual misdeeds, injustices, exploitations and the like. These cancers stem from a culture of sexual devaluation and "freedom", but they share the same root as much of today's immodesty. So, while immodesty does not cause these issues, it doesn't stand idly by, either.

7 comments:

  1. okay, let's talk.
    Number one:
    "What I have not heard, however, is the perspective of a conservative, Christian, 20-something guy." The Rebelution (alex and brett harris and others) constantly talks about this bullshit. As do many other fundie, white, authors/bloggers. where are you looking for information?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2. Lust is not recognizing the attractiveness and being sexually attracted to someone...yes, even their body.
    Lust is when a person detaches a person's being and humanity from their body so they can use/view their body for their own pleasure. It's when you see that girl with her boobs and make her boobs an object instead of a part of a human being.
    Funny thing is, Modesty culture does the same damn thing. It divorces a man/woman from his/her body and replaces it with an over-sexualized object of lust...something to be ashamed of, something to hide. Not a living, thinking human being who can dress how they want...because they are more than a body and their body is their own, a part of their being.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3. Congratulations, you are now certified a misogyny and rape culture apologist.
    "How, then, does being free from modesty empower women? If anything, it makes women more victims to men's lusts and desires at the same time as it wears away at men's defenses and, after the wall has fallen (if it was even there to begin with), it often feeds men's lusts.** It strongly promotes the objectification of women (how many centrefolds are fully, if not modestly, clothed and are conducting themselves?) and fails to place women on even footing."
    Let me see if I got this straight: Because I dress how I want and I proud of and connected to my body, I am wearing down MEN'S defenses and feeding their lusts? Me? Not...their minds, thought processes, lusts, and sexual decisions?
    Also, modesty culture is just the other side of the coin of sexual objectification.
    "how many centrefolds are fully, if not modestly, clothed and are conducting themselves?" Alright, I don't know what you mean by "centrefolds"...so what does that mean?
    Here's the deal with being fully, modestly clothed...nobodies standard is the same...they base their standards on their own personal sexual preferences and triggers and then expect everyone to dress accordingly so they don't "stumble". (a thought on that word: lust is a decision of the mind and being, not an accidental stumble. stop using excuses and blaming others and take some damn responsibility for yourself.) Back to dressing and behaving modestly...Even if I was wearing a loose, floor length robe with my face covered, completely silent and depersonalized, I could still be lusted at by someone somewhere who had a kink for robes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You don't get to tell women how to dress. You do have an opportunity to stop promoting a culture that views people's bodies as objects. And you do have an opportunity to take responsibility for how you view women and responsibility for your own lust.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All right, let me take this piece by piece.

    1 - I am simply stating what I have seen. I do acknowledge that there may be such viewpoints written, but I am stating from what I have seen and observed in terms of articles, blogs, etc.

    2 - You are correct in your definition of lust. Lust is not attraction; lust is, however, responding to that attraction in a way that dehumanizes the subject. It is with regards to this that Christ says "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has, in his heart, committed adultery with her." He is not talking about attraction, but lust. As for modesty culture objectifying women, it can and it probably has. The human body is made by God and if one accepts the posit that God is both perfect and good, then He wouldn't create something inherently bad. The evil that man does stems from man's abuse of free will, the choice to do good or evil. Following that, as you say, a person is more than just their body - reason number 1 why it is wrong, a sin even, to be ogling a woman or man lustfully in the first place. The onus is on the ogler to stop, but just as someone who doesn't want to be mugged shouldn't walk down a dark alleyway at night, shouldn't someone not wanting to be ogled not dress in a manner inviting such looks?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 3 - Let it be noted that I am neither a misogynist nor a rape culture apologist. As for the former, I look forward to the day when men and women can stand on equal footing in society, are viewed in the same light, and are not objectified by each other and as for the latter, in no way do I think that rape is even partially the fault of the victim; it is entirely the fault of the rapist and should be treated as such every time with as much support given to the victim and victim's family as possible.

    I did not say that the woman's actions and manner of dress, or even the woman herself, are the sole factors wearing down their defenses and feeding their lusts. If it came across as such, I apologise. It it a two way street with as much participation from men as from women. Yes, men can and do eat away at their own defenses and feed their lusts with their thoughts and, again, the onus is on them, in that regard, to resolve the issue. As for modesty being the flipside of objectification, if the approach to modesty is shaming, belittlement, guilt-tripping, and the like, then yes, it is. Again, if my post came across in this manner, I do apologise; that is not my intention. If the approach to modesty is one of preservation, protection, or building of self-worth outside of one's image, I do not see an issue with it.

    On to the centrefold question. Men's magazines from previous decades (WWII, for example) featured a fold-out image of a scantily-clad model in the centre of the magazine. I do acknowledge that these are photos taken by men for the objectification of women by other men. My emphasis, however, is to the manner in which the women were objectified: dressed in very revealing (for the period, immodest, though by today's standards, only slightly risque [that's a separate, but related matter about societal acceptance of female objectification and modesty]) outfit, posing in a way so as to encourage a lustful thought pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As for differences in standards, you are right. There is no uniform standard for modesty or appropriateness of dress. Orthodox Muslims dress their women in burqas, Mennonite women wear long dresses and a head covering, to give some examples. I don't expect women everywhere to dress modestly. I know there are many differing viewpoints on the issue, but I do want to encourage thought on the issue. Why do I dress the way I do? What is the purpose of what I'm wearing? Such questions are good examples.

    As for stumbling, yes, lust is a choice, but just as a hiker keeping his or her eyes on the path can misstep and fall, so can any man or woman trying to avoid lust trip up, or "stumble" and lust. And yes, because mankind is inherently sinful (thanks Adam & Eve), each one of us has the proclivity towards sin, so there will always be that guy who will try and ogle a girl even if she's covered in 39 layers of shapeless clothes, which is why I have also asked men to not ogle and to behave in a gentlemanly manner.

    So, this is my way of contributing to the cessation of objectification, by asking both men and women to contribute in an effort to be on guard against lust (and by further extension, sin as a whole) in their own lives while simultaneously seeking to aid one another by not composing themselves in a manner that might incite lust (or any other sin). That is what I'm asking

    I appreciate your comments. alternative opinions are always welcome and necessary in any discussion and I'd be more than willing to continue this conversation either on this thread or elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete