Jump to content
IGNORED

Is “modesty” problematic?


LunaFreya

Recommended Posts

So I read this article and while I fo like the idea of having clothing if women choose to have longer skirts, sleeves, wear headscarves etc the word “modest” kind of grates me.


Dressing “modestly” means dressing in a way to conceal your body so it’s not sexually desirable, To me, this implies that there is something wrong with women’s bodies and they should be covered. That there is some virtue in hiding your body



I have no problem with what women choose to wear, as long as that is indeed a choice. But stop using the word “modesty”. It’s outdated


What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • LunaFreya

    15

  • Jane Jetson

    9

  • Lucrezia Borgia

    7

  • marple

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont use the word 'modesty' but I naturally dress that way, but in turn I dont feel the need to dress to impress and don't wear makeup, fill my lips, wear heels or fancy clothes because society tells me I have too (I dont think this people tell me society does) I dont dress to impress anyone i just wear clothes to me basic expectations on me ie work


My taste is boring as its comfortable so stick with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheGreenSheep

Modesty is an outdated term in my mind. I find as I age my body does not look the same in clothes I’ve worn, so I dress more conservatively but I think it’s more flattering to me.

For example I like a shirt with a sleeve, or longer shorts so my cellulite isn’t as obvious,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VeritasVinumArte

I have been watching many videos on historical clothing and was interested in the idea that the fischu was not for modesty of the lower cut gowns but actually served as a UV sunsense screen.


I do hate the term modesty though. Although like a PP I may wear some higher necklines than I previously wore and more often 3/4 sleeve cardigans to cover up the bingo wings due to age, I still wear fitting 50s style dresses to show off my figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modesty as a concept needs to go off to a corner and die. Mainly because it's used to absolve all kinds of abhorrent behaviour. Women are constantly told they're looking too attractive or too unattractive.

No one ever says the shirtless bloke with sprayed on work shorts with plumber crack showing is immodest, even if he's what's considered conventionally attractive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

 

I didn't see your post. The bit you bolded I can absolutely get behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate it[/quote


I really detest it primary because it transfers responsibility for other people's conduct onto a woman. You see this a lot when anything adverse happens to a woman who's garb does not meet this subjective threshold. It conveys an implicit message that it was her fault and responsibility.


Modesty wear can be framed as an empowerment for women who choose more "conservative" clothing and feel more comfortable, or as a means to control men who are unable to exercise any control themselves. The later is where the problem with the term lies for me.

Edited by verucasalt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me “modesty” isn’t a bad word. As long as it applies to men as much as women. Which it usually doesn’t, so there is one problem.


Also, Modesty as a word, to me, doesn’t immediately say to me sexual modesty, to me it’s about being humble and not showing off. Usually in reference to talents, not appearance, but it can apply to appearance too. It’s about not drawing attention on purpose, don’t be the peacock at the party, just be yourself.


But I totally get that it’s often used in a “cover yourself up lest men have lustful thoughts” way, that’s just not where my mind jumps first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

 

Yeah, I think this is more where my thoughts lie. And it applies to men as much as women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dressing “modestly” means dressing in a way to conceal your body so it’s not sexually desirable, To me, this implies that there is something wrong with women’s bodies and they should be covered. That there is some virtue in hiding your body

 

 

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

I agree it I depends on your definition of modesty.


In a fashion sense, I sometimes will mean it in the sense of moderate/small/subdued/humble eg. a loud coloured, logo emblazoned t shirt compared to a plain t shirt. Or not wearing super expensive designer dress to discuss child poverty. Or deliberately wearing an inappropriate colour/outfit to a traditional funeral.


I don’t think it is always used in relation to sex appeal. I also do think there is some virtue in covering the body in certain situations. I don’t need to see Tony Abbott in budgie smugglers on the front page with my breakfast. Nothing wrong with him dressing like that while he is volunteering as a lifesaver (although most around here wear boardies and a sun shirt), but I wished the newspaper editors would exercise some modesty and not plaster that imagine all over the place where it is hard to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

 

Say what now?


Since when do these two things go hand in hand? A person can be very invested in their appearance regardless of how they dress.


I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that you can tell anything about a woman and the value that she places on other things by the way she dresses. Really uncomfortable.


Straight outta the patriarchy rule book, TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StillFreddiesMum

I've only seen the words being modest or modesty applied to women and our clothes. I've never seen it applied to men and the terms "being modest" or "modesty" is about women not wearing sexy / revealing clothes. It's not about our achievements but being modest about them "oh Jill won the Nobel Peace Prize but she would never talk about it" stuff it's only a requirement of women to "dress modestly" or "be modest" (not be boastful). There is a strong religious element to it - a good Christian / Muslim / insert any relgion here - would dress modestly (long skirts, long sleeves, nothing revealing) and it in some cases this having to dress "modestly" is enforced against women - so it's not a choice is it?


Again, never heard or read ot "being modest" applying to men. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be lumped in the 'dressing for modesty' subset without a doubt. For me I like to not have very low cut tops or short skirts/shirts, I feel over exposed and uncomfortable. I agree with the right to wear anything you like but again for me I would be encouraging a bit more than bear minimum for clothing styles. And about 95% of my reason is to be protected from the sun and other weather elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

 

Say what now?


Since when do these two things go hand in hand? A person can be very invested in their appearance regardless of how they dress.


I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that you can tell anything about a woman and the value that she places on other things by the way she dresses. Really uncomfortable.


Straight outta the patriarchy rule book, TBH.

 

When you apply it to both sexes equally, it's really not. The impression I got from the PP was it being about not investing in appearances in general..So not being too concerned about what you're seen wearing, what car you're seen driving, where you live - not actually attaching huge meaning and value judgement to that material stuff


There are just as many blokes out there having dick measuring contests and basing their identities around having brand name this or that as women. The number of boys out there in bogan land getting beaten and stabbed over shoes is ridiculous - because that's where some of them are attaching meaning.


I think those things shouldn't be sacred cows that can't be deconstructed a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

 

Say what now?


Since when do these two things go hand in hand? A person can be very invested in their appearance regardless of how they dress.


I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that you can tell anything about a woman and the value that she places on other things by the way she dresses. Really uncomfortable.


Straight outta the patriarchy rule book, TBH.

 

What I was trying to say - but apparently didn't express well - was that for me, "modesty" isn't about how much cleavage or leg or whatever is on display, but about the relative weight I'm putting on different aspects of my life, and whether my appearance is getting a disproportionate segment of my time, attention, money, etc.


So if - for example, and only as an example of my own kind of thought process - I was spending large amounts of money every month on clothes, but not giving anything to those in need, for me that would suggest an immodest focus on appearance. Or if I was spending hours each week on stuff to do with personal appearance, but not finding any time to talk to my lonely neighbour, similarly, that would suggest out-of-whack priorities.


It's got nothing to do with what you can tell about a woman (or person; my thought process here isn't particularly gender-specific) by the way she dresses, and a lot more to do about the personal balance of priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article

"I see no difference with a woman who chooses to dress modestly and another woman who doesn't want to dress modestly," Ms Awamleh said.

 

And I have heard the term “modesty fashion”. And it’s usually about clothing that is more covering


Now I have no issues with more covering clothing, but don’t call it “modesty” as that implies outdated morals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what you mean by modesty.


I've often suggested that a reasonable standard of modesty is to care more about doing good than looking good. That is, it's not about one's sex appeal or lack thereof, but about not over-investing in one's appearance at the expense of other things.

 

Say what now?


Since when do these two things go hand in hand? A person can be very invested in their appearance regardless of how they dress.


I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that you can tell anything about a woman and the value that she places on other things by the way she dresses. Really uncomfortable.


Straight outta the patriarchy rule book, TBH.

 

When you apply it to both sexes equally, it's really not. The impression I got from the PP was it being about not investing in appearances in general..So not being too concerned about what you're seen wearing, what car you're seen driving, where you live - not actually attaching huge meaning and value judgement to that material stuff


There are just as many blokes out there having dick measuring contests and basing their identities around having brand name this or that as women. The number of boys out there in bogan land getting beaten and stabbed over shoes is ridiculous - because that's where some of them are attaching meaning.


I think those things shouldn't be sacred cows that can't be deconstructed a bit.

 

Modestly as applied to clothing has, IMO, come to have a very specific meaning relating to women and women alone.


Many would feel a woman wearing $5 short shorts from Kmart and a crop top from BigW should dress more modestly by many. Bugger all to do with brand names and labels.


I don't think people are out there telling bogan teens in they should dress more modestly either.


I don't disagree with the concept that identifying yourself by the brands you wear, the car your drive, and what not can be a destructive way of approaching material things. But is it always? I don't know that I believe that wanting to have brand name clothing, feeling good about driving a car, wearing shoes or dress or whatever has to be a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mention]Alta Gaudia[/mention] As I said, I can get behind the intent of that, particularly as it can have some postive effects like stopping a lot of poverty traps that disproportionately affect women and encourages people to think more about how they live thier values. But how do you feel about the kind of modesty whereby women and girls are made responsible for other's either attraction to them or revulsion by them based solely on what they wear? The kind of modesty where female victims of crimes are assessed for moral correctness before sympathy is given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Again, never heard or read ot "being modest" applying to men. Ever.

 

If it was dicktogs would be illegal.





Especially red ones.

 

I don't know how I've never heard "dicktogs" before, but I haven't. And it's superb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article

"I see no difference with a woman who chooses to dress modestly and another woman who doesn't want to dress modestly," Ms Awamleh said.

 

And I have heard the term “modesty fashion”. And it’s usually about clothing that is more covering


Now I have no issues with more covering clothing, but don’t call it “modesty” as that implies outdated morals

 

Can you link the article? A bit of context would go a long way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertisement

×
×
  • Create New...