Modesty for women and men

[OurBeloved]

That is the core idea that I am interested in discussing. The question is not irrelevant, because being immodest is a sin. Therefore, asking what counts as immodest is most certainly relevant, and asking for an employable definition of what that is is most certainly a core idea, if not the unique one.

What counts as modest builds up with experience as a culture. What is so difficult to understand here?

The problem why many in our present time lack any modesty is because they are unaware of any cultural norms to turn to. So for many, just like for you, there is nothing to turn to.

This does not follow. That same line of thought holds true in other societies that have different clothing standards, e.g. Islamic society. Many men, I can only assume, find various features of faces attractive, yet those remain visible while knees (god forbid the alternative) are covered. I am not convinced that knees are more attractive to men than faces. I am not convinced that we need to go to the extremes of Islam. I am also not convinced that the plumb lines are accurate.

See, this is where you need to be careful that you know the background of all the cultures.

First thing to understand here is that not all cultures on earth are to converge to the same dress. That is impossible and as we have seen, not the case. An eastern country has a saree as a dress while a western one has a gown. Each dress can be designed modestly and immodestly. The culture in which the dress is made will have the heuristics and wisdom on how to best make such dresses.

So you are attacking a straw-man in a sense. The point is not that the entire globe will converge to same set of dresses. The point is that the entire globe, given that they build society where ‘not tempting others’ is a core value, will build their own cultures around how to best do that.

As for Islam, the case is pretty much like what we did with our sexual revolution. They changed their dress for women over-night in a sense at the advice of Prophet Mohammed. In doing so, they abandoned their own traditions to come out with a burqa. Quiet ironically, the West of today, and Islam of the past are both guilty of throwing away all their traditional values and experience to simply adopt a dress.

Define “traditional values.” Are the dresses /the-white-hat-by-jean-baptiste-greuze-c-1780"]Greuze’s painting

is more to your liking.

traditional values are what is present in a culture that surrounds the efforts of striving achieve some core value. In this case, we are talking specifically about the traditional values surrounding that of modesty.

And I have yet to receive an answer on why the opinions of our forebears on modesty should be considered empirical evidence that their attire was justified, given that we know for a fact that the typical attire today is unjustified.

We should listen to our fore-bearers because they passed down traditional values that were developed through the collective wisdom of many in trying to hold a standard of modesty in society.

We know that our current state of attire is unjustified because

1. We abandoned the traditional values and we are doing what is bad according to them
2. Our society has gotten rid of the core-value of striving for modesty it-self and encourages dressing to appeal sexually

Why, if they are unfounded?

They are founded in the collective experience and wisdom of many that belong to that culture. Even if you were to start from scratch, you will still have to build up on the experience of you and that of others. What is rather ironic is that you would be re-inventing the wheel, assuming you ever finish re-inventing what was done over centuries.

Most sadly, it is likely you will fail because the core value of our society has shifted toward encouraging dressing for sex appeal. What was present in the past, the core value of striving for modesty, is no longer present.

“Traditional values” cannot because “traditional values” is not a singular entity. That is why they are not prescriptive.

It does not have to be singular. It can vary from town to town or country to country. You are honestly attacking a straw man here by assuming that traditional values imply a common convergence of entire society to some Star-trek like uniform.

And again, I ask why tradition in this case should be considered of paramount value when no reason for it being considered empirically accurate has been presented. Do the Church’s teachings 400 years ago on dress all apply to dress today?

Church teachings apply to all time. But there are really no TEACHING on which exact dress to wear. The reason being that it evolves naturally with culture as long as the core values of a culture are correct. So the point here is not that you adopt the dress of 1600’s. In fact, if you pay attention to the Popes who spoke in their times about modesty to the faithful, they talk about the dress of that time and what needs to be done to make it modest. They don’t say ‘go back to 1600’.

So what the Pope’s are doing is tapping on to the wealth of knowledge they have received from tradition on what a dress should not look like and then making sure they are adhered to in the new fashion developments. In this way, society is guided and modesty is preserved as fashion evolves.

This all feels so unique and foreign to you because you have lived at a time where nothing is passed down or even considered worth passing down. Everyone just wants to be their own little authority.

 

[johnnyjones]

Again, you are oversimplifying and ignoring the actual issue that is under review: the liminal cases. No one is arguing that wearing a piece of string as clothing is revealing. But are bare shoulders? If a poll were conducted that suggested that mouths were more sexually appealing than shoulders, would it make sense to prohibit bare shoulders but permit visible mouths? etc.

No one is questioning any of what you say. But for reasons that I have mentioned earlier, the advertising industry is not capable of providing all the answers.

Again it comes down to what generally appeals to men, or what is the more heightened approach. You can then say back to me , maybe some guys are attracted to just bare shoulders, not bikinis. At that point, if it really needs to go there, you could ponder the strange idea that more men would rather look at shoulders only as opposed to a half naked woman (bikini). What does advertising recognize as the greater stimulus?

They are in the business of reaching millions of men. They manipulate visuals to maximize the sale of a product. I personally don’t need advertising to tell me what men like to look at, I live as a man and have interacted with hundreds of my gender throughout my life and can safely say the bikini, thong, miniskirt, short shorts low cut blouses and the like are at the top of the list to peak a mans lustful interest.

You can over think something just to make a point that everything is relative but much in life is based on the obvious. If a Christian woman wants to wear the above clothes or something similar she can. And, if she wears it desiring a lustful look, well, you know the answer.

 

[OurBeloved]

Dear OurBeloved,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. That is a jolly good post, old chap, probably the most insightful one in the thread thus far.

It is surely a monumental failure of the first rank that Catholic parents of the last forty years or so have woefully neglected to instruct their offspring, especially daughters, on the requirement to dress modestly with a proper reserve. Some have simply capitulated to their children’s wishes out of some morbid fear of being thought ‘mean’ or of completely turning them away from the Faith and the Church forever. This has been wrongheaded and downright lilylivered and parents must take some share of the blame for the muddled thinking of their children. Teaching our children to respect others is all well and good, but they need to be instructed in basic Catholic moral teaching as well, so that they will form correct views on, for example, dress and behaviour. Sometimes we must be firm and tell our youth that we will not allow them to wear certain articles of clothing which transgress standards of Catholic decency and good taste, according to the consistent teaching of the Church and the moral sense of the faithful down through the ages. If this makes unpopular for a season then so be it, in time they will respect us much more for being true to our convictions and unculcating to them godly Catholic principles that will put them in good stead for their entire lives.

Alas, we have, even unwittingly, given the impression to our children that we value their approval over and above the teaching of the faith and its arduous requirements, which every man must strive to live up to if he professes religion. We have done them no favours in the long term and, as we see on these boards all too frequently, many of the youth have become imbued with secular and relativistic thinking. Had they been instructed correctly and parents had not witheld all that was profitable for their religious formation in godliness, then they would have been endowed with well-formed consciences that would have enabled them to discern what was immodest clothing and what was not. Sadly they have no foundation or grounding in our most holy religion and even though they might be able to argue their case, they lack the necessary formation/instruction to think with an authentic Catholic mind. So often they just slip into an eristic cast of mind which is more intent on winning arguments and overwhelming their opponents. Thus their position on many issues is seriously wanting and even erroneous because it is just not consonant with the Catholic tradition.

The urgent need of the hour is surely a return to the ancient paths and authentic catholic thinking, free from the influence of relativisim and secular reasoning. Yes, the current trend does need to be reversed forthwith if future generations are to be credible witnesses for the Faith in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile towards the Christian religion. We need men who are not ashamed of the old tried and trusted ways of previous generations of Catholics. Men who will boldly rebuke vice and raise a lowered public opinion; men who will refuse to adopt a hand in hand with the world type of religious profession that makes little or no demand upon them in terms of sanctity and separation from the world.

God bless and thankyou for your excellent post, which I hope everyone will read and ponder carefully.

Goodbye for now, dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

You are absolutely correct. I think parents in our societies need to play a more active role in passing down values and first learning the values that existed before we went down this path.

Considering the times we live in, the life of a Christian will certainly be a tough one but a necessary sacrifice for our love for Christ.

 

[Baelor]

My intent is not to be antagonistic. I will make my best attempt to avoid this in my posting.

The problem why many in our present time lack any modesty is because they are unaware of any cultural norms to turn to. So for many, just like for you, there is nothing to turn to.

I would like to have somewhere to turn: empirical evidence of what is sexually attractive! I want to be able to tell men and women, “do not wear X, because it promotes lust.” But I am not able to do so.

The point is that the entire globe, given that they build society where ‘not tempting others’ is a core value, will build their own cultures around how to best do that.

I agree, but it is not clear to me how to take this approach this in our own society. Are you trying to say that sexual attraction is societally-based? If so, would that not lend itself to support of eschewing tradition in favor of the current society? If not, then why is it that different societies have different clothing standards and that these standards are okay?

We know that our current state of attire is unjustified because

1. We abandoned the traditional values and we are doing what is bad according to them

It is not clear to me how this follows. Why is it that abandoning traditional values yields problematic results inherently? What if the traditional values were flawed in some way? I agree that in this particular circumstance, it is incidentally true that the abandonment of traditional values occurs simultaneously with an increase in immodest attire, but I do not see the connection to abandonment of traditional views on modest attire per se.

Church teachings apply to all time. But there are really no TEACHING on which exact dress to wear. The reason being that it evolves naturally with culture as long as the core values of a culture are correct. So the point here is not that you adopt the dress of 1600’s. In fact, if you pay attention to the Popes who spoke in their times about modesty to the faithful, they talk about the dress of that time and what needs to be done to make it modest. They don’t say ‘go back to 1600’.

And what specifically do I do then, in order to correctly advocate modesty?

This all feels so unique and foreign to you because you have lived at a time where nothing is passed down or even considered worth passing down. Everyone just wants to be their own little authority.

That is not true. Much is worth passing down, and much has been passed down. The issue is identifying what is correct and what is not.

Again it comes down to what generally appeals to men, or what is the more heightened approach.

I agree, but I have not yet seen anything indicating what “generally appeals to men.”

Perhaps a different approach is necessary. My hypothetical daughter approaches me and says, “Dad, someone at school told me that showing my shoulders was sinful because it is immodest. Is she right?” What do I tell her, and why?

 

[johnnyjones]

My intent is not to be antagonistic. I will make my best attempt to avoid this in my posting.

I would like to have somewhere to turn: empirical evidence of what is sexually attractive! I want to be able to tell men and women, “do not wear X, because it promotes lust.” But I am not able to do so.

I agree, but it is not clear to me how to take this approach this in our own society. Are you trying to say that sexual attraction is societally-based? If so, would that not lend itself to support of eschewing tradition in favor of the current society? If not, then why is it that different societies have different clothing standards and that these standards are okay?

It is not clear to me how this follows. Why is it that abandoning traditional values yields problematic results inherently? What if the traditional values were flawed in some way? I agree that in this particular circumstance, it is incidentally true that the abandonment of traditional values occurs simultaneously with an increase in immodest attire, but I do not see the connection to abandonment of traditional views on modest attire per se.

And what specifically do I do then, in order to correctly advocate modesty?

That is not true. Much is worth passing down, and much has been passed down. The issue is identifying what is correct and what is not.

I agree, but I have not yet seen anything indicating what “generally appeals to men.”

Perhaps a different approach is necessary. My hypothetical daughter approaches me and says, “Dad, someone at school told me that showing my shoulders was sinful because it is immodest. Is she right?” What do I tell her, and why?

“You haven.t seen anything that generally appeals to men”. It is not difficult to do research on this matter. If you look using even a cursory approach, especially as a man, you will find the answer rather quickly. You would then be equipped with the ability to instruct the fictitious child accordingly.

 

[Baelor]

“You haven.t seen anything that generally appeals to men”. It is not difficult to do research on this matter. If you look using even a cursory approach, especially as a man, you will find the answer rather quickly.

Unfortunately, my research does not help – there does not seem to be a consensus on whether bare shoulders are modest or immodest. I know that thongs are sexually attractive in that the butt is, but that does not tell me what I need to know.

You would then be equipped with the ability to instruct the fictitious child accordingly.

The answer would be…?

 

[OurBeloved]

My intent is not to be antagonistic. I will make my best attempt to avoid this in my posting.

Thanks, that would be most appreciated.

I would like to have somewhere to turn: empirical evidence of what is sexually attractive! I want to be able to tell men and women, “do not wear X, because it promotes lust.” But I am not able to do so.

Well you can do so. But you will have to appeal to the traditional values before we abandoned them as the plumb lines. They will most likely object to this the same way you do. So you will have to explain to them what traditional values are and how they were not just random ideas of our culture but things that fell in to place as our society tried its best to hold a standard of modesty.

This is definitely not easy to explain but not impossible.

I agree, but it is not clear to me how to take this approach this in our own society. Are you trying to say that sexual attraction is societally-based? If so, would that not lend itself to support of eschewing tradition in favor of the current society? If not, then why is it that different societies have different clothing standards and that these standards are okay?

Well the idea here is not that different societies have different sexual attraction standards. It is that different societies have different forms of dress or fashions.

So a society of the East that has a saree as a form of dress for women will have developed its heuristics and values around such dresses. They will incorporate their knowledge and experience of what forms of exposure causes sexual attraction to better adjust their dresses. In our society, this will apply to gowns for an example.

But all these cultures, as long as they share the core value of modesty as their cultural standard, do share a sort of consensus on what is sexual and what is not.

Usually anthropologists are quick to point out cultures that wear none to minimal clothing in such examples. The problem with that counter-example is that these cultures never had a notion of modesty that they were trying to uphold. So in this sense, that particular culture would be less developed when it comes to modesty and awareness of concepts and values related to it.

But in terms of consensus on what causes sexual attraction, you can come up with a consensus, even on a global scale as long as you only consider old enough cultures that have had modesty as a core value.

It is not clear to me how this follows. Why is it that abandoning traditional values yields problematic results inherently? What if the traditional values were flawed in some way? I agree that in this particular circumstance, it is incidentally true that the abandonment of traditional values occurs simultaneously with an increase in immodest attire, but I do not see the connection to abandonment of traditional views on modest attire per se.

Well the abandonment of traditional values tends to be equivalent to abandoning some scientific knowledge we have gathered up to now about a scientific concept (its a bit imperfect of an analogy).

The key here I think is to understand that every traditional value was developed as a source of some experience or decision on something that took place. As long as the developments took place to uphold modesty by it’s society based on experiences, it would have to be considered as what we must refine. It can be imperfect but it cannot most likely be wrong.

So in a sense, refinement is what we must seek based on our knowledge and experience. The problem with complete abandonment is that it sort of resets all our knowledge and leaves us with nothing to go by like in our present case.

And what specifically do I do then, in order to correctly advocate modesty?

Since our departure from holding modesty as a core value in our cultural development, it has been sometime. So we have arrivals of new fashions but no real traditional values to guide them.

What might be possible is to go back to the old traditional values and use some of the ideas as a starting point to making judgements on modesty when it comes to dress.

But more importantly, it will be a huge feat in it-self to just get society to first want to realign it-self to uphold modesty.

That is not true. Much is worth passing down, and much has been passed down. The issue is identifying what is correct and what is not.

Yes certainly, I did not imply that nothing today is worth passing down. I was merely pointing out that some parents consider its not good to pass anything down and each should learn from their experiences.

(continued…)

 

[OurBeloved]

(continued…)

Perhaps a different approach is necessary. My hypothetical daughter approaches me and says, “Dad, someone at school told me that showing my shoulders was sinful because it is immodest. Is she right?” What do I tell her, and why?

You will have to do what parents in cultures that uphold modesty do - turn to traditional values. The dilemma here is that we have a society that completely left behind traditional values about 70 years ago so you have nothing to go by as traditional values.

In this case, what I would do in your shoes is to go back to the point at which we had traditional values and judge the claim by those standards, however incompatible it may seem with today.

Or, I will consider the traditional values of another present day culture that still upholds modesty as a core value in its culture.

The problem with that route might be that it will be more likely to cause mismatch with our society’s notion of dress it-self when it is too foreign ex: wearing a saree.

So in your hypothetical position, I think I will go and adopt some of the traditional values of our society, and try to find fashions that respect those values today. I am unaware if shoulder exposure was considered problematic at that time but if it was, I would try to buy dresses with shoulders for the child.

The sad thing is that we do have a society that is far disconnected from the notions of modesty. So there is nothing available in our current culture that we can use as a plumb-line because it never considered modesty a core value to begin with. We therefore have to go back to a time in which our culture was still upholding modesty as a core value and the traditions that surrounded that time. That is what we will have to use in judging our fashions today.

 

[Portrait]

You are saying all that I was saying it a much more eloquent way.

Dear johnnyjones,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Thankyou for your kind words. Have enjoyed reading your own incisive contributions to the thread. Keep up the good work. Those who uphold Catholic modesty standards are being obedient to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

God bless, my dear brother.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Well the idea here is not that different societies have different sexual attraction standards. It is that different societies have different forms of dress or fashions.

But if we have a universally applicable ‘knowledge’ of what is sexually attractive, on what legitimate basis do the societies disagree with each other on what needs to be covered? Of course, the answer is irrelevant one does not believe they do disagree.

But all these cultures, as long as they share the core value of modesty as their cultural standard, do share a sort of consensus on what is sexual and what is not.

Is this consensus justified?

But in terms of consensus on what causes sexual attraction, you can come up with a consensus, even on a global scale as long as you only consider old enough cultures that have had modesty as a core value.

I am not quite sure I understand why we should discard societies that do not have modesty as a core virtue without establishing prior that their dress does not promote lust in men.

So in your hypothetical position, I think I will go and adopt some of the traditional values of our society, and try to find fashions that respect those values today. I am unaware if shoulder exposure was considered problematic at that time but if it was, I would try to buy dresses with shoulders for the child.

I do not think I fully understand your reasoning. My child asked whether bare shoulders are immodest or not, and I do not quite see the answer to that question (and the justification) in your post.

The closest I can find is that it (may) be immodest because people X number of years ago covered their shoulders (maybe), but that cannot possible be what you are saying.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Using some of the recent logic, why have any guidelines with dress at all.

Thanks for highlighting the incapacity of the Modesty Police to grasp common sense and as well as their insistence on clinging on to what will inevitably crumble.

Also, intent, in the world of fashion is made known all the time. Don’t forget the girl in a bikini in a sports car commercial waving a flag. Her revealing body was not intended to lure male viewers based on lust.

That’s not fashion. That’s automobile marketing. Please have the humility to at least admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

A man does not have to look at her for her sin to be “valid”. One is not sinless because they were unsuccessful in their scheme to bring another down. Of course if the man feeds his lust he is sinning.

This is all under the assumption that you have mind-reading powers and know exactly the reasons why people wear what the wear.

Honestly, I don’t know what’s stopping me from praying to God that people like you get a nice, fat serving of deception.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But contrary to your popular belief, we are very much aware of what is and what is not sexually attractive. People who make commercials, design clothing, design costume for media like films, animation are all well aware of what is “sexually attractive” and what is not.

Uh, no. They don’t. And by don’t, I mean there is no absolute consensus. Again, what is sexy in one context will not be so in another. School swimsuits are one-piece bathing suits and would be considered modest by some people’s standards. However, I know more than a handful of guys who consider the sexual fetish items.

I haven’t even begun to discuss the folly that is disregarding intent itself. Are you aware of that school of thought? Apparently not.

And yes, most “manga-inspired” art is usually done in a fashion to appeal to teenage sex faculties which is a sad fact.

Really? This is to appeal to my sex faculties?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Lightxiii.PNG/250px-Lightxiii.PNG

What about this one for the ladies?

http://static.gamesradar.com/images... feature/ART/Finished/Jin1--article_image.jpg

In any case, just because you feel that you are unaware of how to draw the line between what is sexually attractive or not, you should not assume that such a line does not exist and others also suffer from the same ordeal. The right thing to do is for you to seek assistance by someone perhaps much older than you, a good solid priest, or writing of saints.

How charitable of you to assume I’m disabled of something when in truth is it’s the ones giving into their hormones who are disabled (willingly at that). I have a capacity to eliminate hormonal influence when I evaluate something aesthetically, so does everyone else and so do you. Heck, I’ll say it again. I’ve found even outfits that would make you squirm still worthy of admiration without any hormonal influence.

And frankly, I’ve gleaned more insight from fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast than the modesty quotes from the saints on these threads. If there’s one virtue I find surprisingly constant in both fantasy and real life, it’s that appearances can never be trusted.

 

[thewanderer]

OurBeloved,

I’m still not clear as to what you mean by ‘traditional values’ and why you think they are the obvious standard by which to measure modesty.

I think that if what you mean by ‘traditional values’ includes the idea that women should not wear pants, for example, then it would actually be quite detrimental to society to return to such values. Such an idea restricts what actions a woman can perform in an unfair manner solely because of the way that men might objectify them. This seems dangerously close to the false sense of modesty in which the woman becomes viewed almost solely as the temptation that must be removed from the sight of men. There is no just reason why women should be prohibited from sports, and they need to be able to wear pants, and shorts, or whatever other clothing a particular sport requires in order to be able to play. So one rule of thumb I would like to throw out there for consideration is that no one should be prohibited or discouraged from some legitamit activity becasue of a societal restriction on their clothing.

While I understand that you are trying to help the present society by having it return to a certain set of values that is seen as better, I think I agree with Baelor in that I don’t see how it can be true as an absolute statement that to return to a particular set of values simply based off of the fact that a previous society developed said standard. So I think that in order to argue that one should return to traditional values, there needs to be more of an argument based off of those particular traditional values themselves and not simply from the fact that they are traditional.

 

[johnnyjones]

Unfortunately, my research does not help – there does not seem to be a consensus on whether bare shoulders are modest or immodest. I know that thongs are sexually attractive in that the butt is, but that does not tell me what I need to know.

The answer would be…?

What research are you doing? Let me give you some suggestions. Talk to numerous amounts of men. Actually, after the first 10 men you should start seeing a trend. Although for reasons not entirely clear you expressed not being not happy with what results advertising would provide.

Place your skepticism in that area briefly aside and find out what million dollar industries use “on average” to bring in billions more dollars in their non futile attempt to lure, manipulate and entice men. If revealing breasts and an increased view of skin from the knees to the neck based on how apparel is adorned trumps shoulders you may receive an indicator.

Your answer to the fake young girl may be a duplicate of what other dads (and moms) have been saying for years. If your not a parent as I am you may have to inquire.

Also, long documented psychological studies of a male may help if you remain puzzled.
Last but not least, converse with woman who will be straight forward. Maybe they can tell you why they put on short tight shorts, mini skirts, thongs and low cut blouses. Don’t be dissuaded by females who give ambiguous answers. Not all women like to discuss the real reason for wearing these clothes especially to a man.

 

[Baelor]

What research are you doing? Let me give you some suggestions. Talk to numerous amounts of men. Actually, after the first 10 men you should start seeing a trend. Although for reasons not entirely clear you expressed not being not happy with what results advertising would provide.

I would like to talk to numerous amounts of men. I would like a study to survey thousands of men and then publish the results of the study.

Advertising does not answer the question, “Is X immodest.” We know that they try to sell sex. That does not mean that everything in an ad is immodest and that everything not in it is modest.

Place your skepticism in that area briefly aside and find out what million dollar industries use “on average” to bring in billions more dollars in their non futile attempt to lure, manipulate and entice men. If revealing breasts and an increased view of skin from the knees to the neck based on how apparel is adorned trumps shoulders you may receive an indicator.

The advertisers are crossing the line. Again, what they show is very obviously sexual (in the relevant ads, of course). But I cannot watch an ad and determine that X garment or X thing is modest or immodest. I can only know that A advertising company thought that X garment should be in X ad, perhaps based on A’s idea of what appeals to most people.

Your answer to the fake young girl may be a duplicate of what other dads (and moms) have been saying for years. If your not a parent as I am you may have to inquire.

I inquire. She asked me whether it was true that bare shoulders are immodest. How do I respond?

Also, long documented psychological studies of a male may help if you remain puzzled. Last but not least, converse with woman who will be straight forward. Maybe they can tell you why they put on short tight shorts, mini skirts, thongs and low cut blouses. Don’t be dissuaded by females who give ambiguous answers. Not all women like to discuss the real reason for wearing these clothes especially to a man.

Could you link to these studies?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Place your skepticism in that area briefly aside and find out what million dollar industries use “on average” to bring in billions more dollars in their non futile attempt to lure, manipulate and entice men. If revealing breasts and an increased view of skin from the knees to the neck based on how apparel is adorned trumps shoulders you may receive an indicator.

Please stop talking about advertising as if you’ve actually worked even close with the industry. Let me let you in on a little secret: I’ve become part of my company’s recent efforts to connect with ad groups. Sex doesn’t always sell. Not every product is Axe cologne or a sports car.

And heck, last time I saw a car commercial, it showed just that: THE CAR.

You know this reminds me of the time I first watched a trailer for an upcoming video game Lollipop Chainsaw. In it, you’d probably see a lot of things that might prove you right. Sexual appeal seemed to have been the focus of it.

You want to know my reaction to it though? A raised eyebrow and absolutely diminished desire to play the game. Hyper-sexualized games aren’t as popular in the community as you might think.

Now fast forward a year after and I saw a second trailer of the game, this time featuring more of the gameplay and better yet, the bosses. Today that game is now officially on my PS3 wishlist. Why? Why when I couldn’t care less about a skimpy cheerleader slicing zombies with a chainsaw? It’s because the bosses were THAT awesome. “Bosses of Zombie Rock”? Yes please! I wasn’t sold by the prospect of seeing a skimpy girl. I was sold by the concept of fighting rock-themed zombie lords.

If something as meager as more substantial focus on the product instead of hormones is enough to shift focus, then I don’t see why people like you insist on making excuses.

Not all women like to discuss the real reason for wearing these clothes especially to a man.

Assuming if there’s really any point in discussing a person’s clothes in the first place.

 

[johnnyjones]

Thanks for highlighting the incapacity of the Modesty Police to grasp common sense and as well as their insistence on clinging on to what will inevitably crumble.

That’s not fashion. That’s automobile marketing. Please have the humility to at least admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

This is all under the assumption that you have mind-reading powers and know exactly the reasons why people wear what the wear.

Honestly, I don’t know what’s stopping me from praying to God that people like you get a nice, fat serving of deception.

“Modesty police?” Fashion is not policed … or is it?. Wear a bikini to mass. “Well that’s not policing, that’s just common sense.” Right. So common sense comes into play based on psyche. People can wear whatever they want. Only suggestions have been given.

What the girl is wearing in the car commercial isn’t fashion? It is not a piece of apparel? Tell the car company to take the scantily clad woman out of the commercial, it has no influence on the product . Take the bikini girls off the car calenders to, guys just want to look at the car (well some do). I guess they put the girl there to reach the lesser audience .

Some here keep avoiding intent. So if the woman knows the intent, she is blameless?
Your last sentence was pretty far reaching about considering “deception”. Has it really come to that for you?

 

[johnnyjones]

Please stop talking about advertising as if you’ve actually worked even close with the industry. Let me let you in on a little secret: I’ve become part of my company’s recent efforts to connect with ad groups. Sex doesn’t always sell. Not every product is Axe cologne or a sports car.

And heck, last time I saw a car commercial, it showed just that: THE CAR.

You know this reminds me of the time I first watched a trailer for an upcoming video game Lollipop Chainsaw. In it, you’d probably see a lot of things that might prove you right. Sexual appeal seemed to have been the focus of it.

You want to know my reaction to it though? A raised eyebrow and absolutely diminished desire to play the game. Hyper-sexualized games aren’t as popular in the community as you might think.

Now fast forward a year after and I saw a second trailer of the game, this time featuring more of the gameplay and better yet, the bosses. Today that game is now officially on my PS3 wishlist. Why? Why when I couldn’t care less about a skimpy cheerleader slicing zombies with a chainsaw? It’s because the bosses were THAT awesome. “Bosses of Zombie Rock”? Yes please! I wasn’t sold by the prospect of seeing a skimpy girl. I was sold by the concept of fighting rock-themed zombie lords.

If something as meager as more substantial focus on the product instead of hormones is enough to shift focus, then I don’t see why people like you insist on making excuses.

Assuming if there’s really any point in discussing a person’s clothes in the first place.

Who says sex ALWAYS sells. The fact that you said, “doesn’t always” means it has. So advertisers DO know that it HAS sold. Are you going to actually argue that sex is not currently factor in sales? WOW!

Your not the only one to have worked in advertising. I was scolded for not putting a half dressed female on the cover of a men’s magazine promotion.

Who cares what’s “more popular” in games, that’s not what we’re dealing with. Sex isn’t less popular, is it?
. Would there be any reason for a father to tell his daughter not to wear a tight mini skirt( or the like) which has been said by fathers for years? You can tell the fathers they are doing wrong and what she wears has no bearing on anything.

 

[OurBeloved]

But if we have a universally applicable ‘knowledge’ of what is sexually attractive, on what legitimate basis do the societies disagree with each other on what needs to be covered? Of course, the answer is irrelevant one does not believe they do disagree.

Societies that do uphold modesty as a core value do not actually disagree. If you show someone in an Eastern culture a dress from 1900 (a time where modesty was still a core value in our culture), they would agree that there is nothing seemingly wrong with the dress except that it is not in their fashion taste.

The reason why now we have disagreement is that our current culture is new and has progressed without modesty as a core value. So now there is indeed, as expected, a disagreement.

Is this consensus justified?

It is what you have to turn to. To give you and example, lets say someone is a grade five science student. Given a situation that they have to think scientifically, they have to turn to that knowledge they have as a grade five student. Their knowledge might be imperfect, but it is justified to turn to his knowledge.

I am not quite sure I understand why we should discard societies that do not have modesty as a core virtue without establishing prior that their dress does not promote lust in men.

Well the way we dress and what we uncover can tempt men. I think you agreed to that if we women perhaps only wore a belt around our waist and nothing else, that is clearly going to appeal to sexual faculties. If I understood you correctly, you are only uncertain about the no-so-clear cases.

So the importance of proper dress in not leading others to temptation I think is not a premise under debate.

I do not think I fully understand your reasoning. My child asked whether bare shoulders are immodest or not, and I do not quite see the answer to that question (and the justification) in your post.

How-come? The answer is for you to go and look at traditional values from a time where society upheld modesty as a core value and then advise her based on that values.

The justification here is that those traditional values are our collective wisdom on how best to uphold modesty in our society.

Quiet ironically, if you think about it a bit further for an alternative, what would you suggest we do? The best think you could probably do is try and answer from your OWN experience as to whether it is bad to expose shoulders or not. But since you have lived for a much more lesser time, it is more than likely you are wrong compared to the collective experience of many.

But I am interested if you can present an alternative.

Do keep in mind that current cultural values are not a good alternative because that has been built without modesty as a core value. Hence no good reason for us to think that it has any traditional values on how to best uphold modesty.

The closest I can find is that it (may) be immodest because people X number of years ago covered their shoulders (maybe), but that cannot possible be what you are saying.

Actually, that might be exactly what I am saying. If the traditional values in a society that upheld modesty did say that one had to cover the shoulders, that is what you have to turn to.

The only reason you might object, if you think about it, is probably because “from my current experience, covering shoulders is not a problem”. The problem here is that considering the short period of time you have lived, and that you have lived in a culture that promotes immodesty, it is more likely that you are incorrect when you contradict the collective wisdom of a culture that has upheld modesty for centuries.

So yes, covering shoulders might indeed seem bizarre. But if we really think about it, it is more likely that it is a by-product of our own conditioning to immodesty in our current culture. As expected, since the core values are different, we perceive a sense of incompatibility with the values of old and now.

Now just to anticipate something you might be thinking, you might say the following; “I am not making my judgement on current cultural values and my personal experience about the shoulders but based on some empirical research I know”. But if that were the case, and such empirical research does exist, we can surely turn to that and you are welcome to provide that.

The problem here however is that you do suggest that there is no empirical strictly scientific research on what dress causes temptation and what doesn’t. So in the absence of such evidence, the best it seems that one can do is turn to traditional values of a culture that upheld modesty.

 

[thewanderer]

OurBeloved,

I think you re too quickly lumping everyone today together. There are, even just in the States (which is I assume where we are talking about) various subsets of cultures beyond the main culture presented by the media. I have been lucky to be able to live recently in a catholic community which holds modesty as important but whose dress would still not be acceptable by many people at various times in the past as they allow women to wear pants, shorts, swimsuits, skirts even that come just above the knee, though most go at least just below it. What am I to think of such a community? Am I to presume that since many things they find socially acceptable would not have been socially acceptable in certain cultures in he past that they do not actually hold modesty as an important value? I can assure you that they do. The problem on relying on past ideas o how to dress is that they were influenced by many different values in a society, not just on modesty.