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

[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