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

[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.