Passing Thoughts

[jackofallgeeks]

Modesty.

Recently, passing through Friends' journals and reading through Friends' Friends' journals, I've stumbled upon the issue of modesty and who's 'responsible.'

That sounds quite awkward.
Who's responsible? Who's responsible for what?

Tori Amos was quoted, "So I wore a slinky red thing, does that mean I should spread?" Tori has such a way with words. The point was, if a girl wears 'immodest' clothes, and some guy has impure thoughts, who's at fault? Surley not the girl, it was argued, because surely she wasn't inviting it, or asking for it, or what have you.

Take a step back. Tori's song is about rape. I'm not touching that subject, and my comment that she "wasn't asking for it" isn't meant to apply there.

That having been said, it takes two to tango. I think it's a commonly accepted belief that men struggle with lust quite a bit. Every two minutes, it's been claimed. The thing of it is that while, yes, men have a responsibility to control themselves, doesn't it also follow that women have a 'responsibility' to not tempt, directly or indirectly? If you're trying to help an addict, you don't wave heroine in front of him. Is it not irresponsible, to some extent, for women to put us into that situation?

-shrugs- Maybe it's just me. You know, I can be odd at times. But still, it seems only reasonable that if a girl's walking around exposed, at least some of the blame is hers. -shrugs-

Comments

[ambereternal.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm going to start by saying I understand that you're not talking about the issue of rape...That being said, who determines what is and is not inviting. I've been hit on in very inappropriate ways wearing a baggy sweatshirt and crappy jeans. I've been violated in public places on days when I've done absolutely nothing to make myself look good or accentuate my "assets". Yes, there are situations when women dress to kill. And yes, sometimes women go overboard with that...I mean, I've seen women wear things that would make a prostitute cringe. My point is that sometimes it doesn't matter what a woman wears or looks like. Some men are just assholes, and will attempt to take advantage no matter what. Then there are men who deal with the temptation in a responsible and adult way...Those are the good guys. They're few and far between. Some women are just whores, and will do everything they can to get a guy's attention...appropriate or not. Other women are not...Sadly it's the women who are not who often get hurt in these situations.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Oh, I completely agree. I'm not some purity Nazi or anything, understand, and I grant that some guys could care less about anything other than what makes them feel good... You would really have to see more of what prompted this, really, to get where I'm coming from... It basically had to do with an icon of a girl in skimpy lingere and the perpetrater claiming "their tits; if i were something skimpy and you get off on it, you're the sicko." Basically, she has no responsibility at all as far as what she wears and the effect it has on men. You'll note that I don't deny that men have a responsibility to keep themselves clean, too, and I don't deny that there are ass-holes out there. I simply claim that women aren't free from all responsibility, and depending on how immodest they go, they can be quite detrimental.

[otakulk.livejournal.com]

I am just going to wait for the flood of comments to come in on this one before I shoot down everything you just said :P

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Ha, there will be no flood. No one reads this Journal.
^_^;;

[thismortalquill.livejournal.com]

You can tell that this commentary was written by a man.

Unless she's a whore or otherwise specifically looking to get laid, the reason a woman gets dressed up is for other women. Men really don't figure into it unless a woman's with a man already and she knows he likes certain things.

My biggest question is "why should there be blame?"

if a girl wears 'immodest' clothes, and some guy has impure thoughts, who's at fault?

Why is there a fault? Impure thoughts are... normal? It's when someone inappropriately acts on those thoughts when "blame" and "fault" come into play.

But assume we're playing by your rules. Or, that is to say, maybe not your rules, but by rules that say immodesty is bad, and so are impure thoughts. In that case, "blame" and "fault" would come into play.

while, yes, men have a responsibility to control themselves, doesn't it also follow that women have a 'responsibility' to not tempt, directly or indirectly?

This attitude is what led to burkas and the ostracization of women in "men's" culture.

But, playing by the outlined rules, let me see, what would I say...

If a woman dresses like a hussy, exposing things, or wearing provocative clothing, then yes, there is some "blame" on her because she is choosing to wear that sort of clothing.

However, it takes very little to prompt an impure thought from a man.

My bottom line? Wearing skimpy clothing might be provocative, but it does not implicitly invite any sort of violation or harassment. And men are prone to "impure thoughts" and they are normal and acceptable as long as they don't share them or act upon them with an unwilling listener or participant.

[thismortalquill.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add that if a man *does* act upon or otherwise share his impure thought with an unwilling partner/listener, then it is entirely his fault.

Having a thought is one thing.

Self control with people who are unwilling is an entirely different thing altogether.

It is absolutely and entirely a man's responsibility to check on the willingness of the participant/listener before he acts upon his thoughts.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

It is absolutely and entirely a man's responsibility to check on the willingness of the participant/listener before he acts upon his thoughts.
Granted.

Having a thought is one thing.
Self control with people who are unwilling is an entirely different thing altogether.
Granted.

I forgot to add that if a man *does* act upon or otherwise share his impure thought with an unwilling partner/listener, then it is entirely his fault.
Disputed. In most cases where you hear about this, yes, such would seem to e the case. But I refuse to concede that if a girl is wearing cut-off jeans and a bra (nothing else) that she does not have some part to play. We both acknowledge that men are easily led to such thoughts (and thoughts lead to actions, in many cases), and to be aware of this fact and still claim not part is ludicrous.

[thismortalquill.livejournal.com]

I think in the dispute here it is all about how one views the body. If one views it as something shameful and/or secret that has to be covered up, and feel that flaunting is bad, then that's one thing. While I think flaunting is not the way to go about living one's life, I also have no problem with viewing a naked body or having one myself in less than intimate settings. Sure, due to social stigmas, I don't tend to run around naked, nor would I really care to, but I am comfortable with the idea of a body as something everyone has and I feel that it's not something to get worked up over.

As to the girl in a bra and cut offs, it's all about her intentions. If she's genuinely hot, and it's miserable to be wearing more clothing, than I don't blame her a bit for her outfit. If she's doing it to try to get a reaction, then yes, she is to blame because that's what she's trying to do.

It's all about intent. There are clothes I have that I generally wouldn't wear unless it's goddamn miserably hot and I can't spent my entire day in a cold bathtub. But when I wear them, they could be considered immodest, because of the unavoidable amount of cleavage I end up baring, coupled with the fact that I'm all hot and sweaty and glistening with steamy trails of wetness dripping off of my body... do you see how something like that could be entirely unintentional? Would you be blaming me in that situation?

There are other shirts I have that are cut to bring out my figure, and yes, even to flaunt that same-said cleavage. But I don't end up looking like some stripper or whore off of the street. I'd wear any of these shirts in front of my mother. If I'm just wearing one of these to go to the store for some milk and I get manhandled inappropriately, the blame is entirely on the other person breaking approprate social bounds. If I'm really going out to have fun and I'm "on display" and I get manhandled, I believe it is not my DRESS that gets me there, it is my ACTIONS. I could be wearing the most restrictive, unattractive dress possible, but still act in such a way to bring the same treatment upon myself.

But honestly, you'll find me quite biased, as someone who was inappropriately handled as a child from a trusted individual. I've had to really pick the situation apart to be able to live my life as a normal person. I've had to believe that "it wasn't my fault" or I would have lost my sanity long ago. I still believe in the sanctity of a body, and even if I am advertising, you better not touch me unless I've indicated that it's okay, and I think every other person has that right too.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Just two notes, to clarify my stance...

Firstly, I agree, it is wholly wrong for a person to speak or act inappropriately, regardless of anything else. I should expect that that would be understood of me.

Secondly, I would just like to point out that, contrary to what certain implications would show, I don't think that the body, naked or otherwise, is shameful.

I will say nothing else on the issue.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I think you and I would have a rather difficult time discussing this, as we seem to have vastly different value systems. Still, let us pretend that immodesty is a bad thing. And since we're compromising, we'll leave the definition of 'immodest' to you -- let them be naked, if needs be. Given this, though, would you yet argue that a girl who dresses immodestly has no responsibility for the temptation she presents?

Further, I am not attempting to ostracize women -- the implication itself is most offensive. Nor am I claiming that women who dress provocatively are inviting violation -- certainly not! My only point is that while men should be careful to control themselves, girls likewise should be careful not to dangle the proverbial carrot in front of them.

However, it takes very little to prompt an impure thought from a man.
I would argue the point. I would argue that society trains boys to be as prone as they are. Not to say that men are not inclined toward it already; we are. However, I guarantee you that, regardless, a girl in jeans and a sweatshirt conjures different ideas than a girl in a string bikini, and a well-disciplined man will not be as prone as one who has been egged on and desensitized. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

[thismortalquill.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do believe that the value system thing does get in the way a bit, but here goes:

Even should a woman decide to walk buck naked through a crowded place, in no way should anyone uninvited violate her physical person. That is an inaliable right, in my book. Immodesty in and of itself is not an invitation. It is not her fault in any way if a man, or anyone else, cannot keep their hands (or whatever) to themselves.

Cat calls, and commentary are slightly different, though. In my book of the way the world should work, a woman should be able to wear whatever the hell she wants and not garner any unwanted comments. Since this *is* the real world, a certain amount of commentary should be expected.

But look at me, I've forgotten the rules. We are assuming immodesty is a bad thing. Hokay. If we are playing by those rules, then yes, okay you win, immodesty is a bad thing, and there should be an unholy amount of blame placed upon a woman who even thinks of baring an ankle.

Sorry. I'm just trying to get my head around this immodesty thing. It just seems really strange. It's rather like someone informing you that showing your teeth when you smile is bad. You can smile, but show any teeth at all and you're doomed to social ostracization.

I think perhaps I'm too outside the issue to be of much use in conversation.

And I didn't mean to imply that you yourself were making an attempt to ostracize women and I'm not sure I can continue to discuss it without further offending you. I apologize for any offense you might have taken from my earlier comments, but it was an opinionated discussion, after all, and there was bound to be some dissent somewhere.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry doesn't cut it.

If we are playing by those rules, then yes, okay you win, immodesty is a bad thing, and there should be an unholy amount of blame placed upon a woman who even thinks of baring an ankle.
roliasnoom has already refuted the notion that he's promoting burka-type stuff, and for you to ignore that fact to get in a cheap shot like this is quite rude. :(
--Skreyola

[bsgnome.livejournal.com]

Well, I must say that, for the most part, I agree with you. But I think the problem you've been having with others is, essentially, a misrepresentation of terms--namely, "modesty".

Now, I don't claim to know all that much about the subject--though I've seen it discussed before, and the exact same kind of discussion came about. Anyhow, "modesty" need be properly defined. Quite frankly, there is no certain mark as to when something is or is not immodest--it's a cultural element, and therefore, prone to acclimation. That is to say, what was immodest a century ago is not necessarily immodest today--case in point: tuxedos. Similarly, it is also affected by environment--what is immodest under given circumstances is not necessarily immodest in another situation. More clearly--immodesty is dressing in such a way that one knows that it will cause others to think . . . "wrongly".

Now, granted, there are men who will hoot and hollar regardless of the way a woman dresses. But, I'd agrue, there are also men who will treat a woman with the utmost respect regardless of the way she dresses. Modesty, however, cannot properly be gauged according to either of these groups, but rather, it should be regarded according to the average. I think that everyone--not just women; not just men--has a responsibility to dress modestly--that is to say, they have a responsibility to dress in such a way that they are certain it would not be their dress that causes others to think "wrongly", but, rather, some depravity on the part of the others.

Now, as for whether or not immodesty is wrong. Well, certainly--for immodesty is an action on the individual's part intended to cause others to think "wrongly". Thinking "wrongly", in turn, causes the others to act in a manner against their better judgment. I, personally, would think it ludicrous to claim that acting against one's better judgment is not wrong--it's called better judgment for a reason.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

You, along with others here, seem to have missed my point, though -- it was not my intent to define modesty, or what is or is not modest. I do think your definition fits well, but my point was to argue, opposed to SomeoneElse who I found on LJ, that women have cause to be aware of their dress, and are not wholly without blame in given situations. If, as I'm sure you did, you read Stacey (GrandOdalisque)'s comments, she thinks otherwise.

[bsgnome.livejournal.com]

I had said I agreed with you.

Women (as well as men) should be aware as to whether or not their dress is immodest--for, dressing so is unjust to others, whom it causes to think "wrongly", because it expects of them a level of self-control they are not capable of. In such a case, the immodest dresser is to blame--provided they knew they were dressing immodestly. In the case of the modest dresser, anyone thinking "wrongly" of them does so because there own depravity, not because of the "immodesty" of the dress. In such a case, it is the one thinking "wrongly" who is to blame.

Kindred

[skreyola.livejournal.com]

I understand exactly from whence you are coming on this, and I agree with you whole-heartedly.
I often wonder why the feminists don't seem to even notice the demystification and objectification of women by women who dress that way... only by men who treat women a certain way. Quite sexist, if you ask me.

I think everyone should dress modestly in public... and I'm speaking of sensual modesty, not some standard of abhorring flashiness, as someone mentioned (re:tuxedo).