When will people get it that people against abstinence-only sex ed are against it because it spreads dangerous misinformation that could seriously harm the health of people? Not because we're dirty hooligans that want to have orgies without our algebra teacher giving us a dirty look.

Gah.

And for the record, I make a brilliant strawberry pie and sometimes I'm not modestly dressed. *gasp*

I'm modestly dressed all the time, unless it's really hot outside, because I do not dress for the purpose of looking attractive to men (in my opinion, they are here to be attractive to me, not the other way around.) And this is bullshit. Whether the emphasis is on dressing modestly because it makes you a good person or dressing sluttily because it makes you empowerful, the fact that either way it's not about what you *want* but what other people see you as means that either way it's anti-women-as-human.

I am not your fucking object, ok? I am the subject. I am the gaze. Dressing to arouse men is pointless because what are they doing to arouse me? But if I am hot and so I dress in a halter shirt and micro shorts, why is the fact that this is arousing to men more important than the fact that it's hot outside and I want to cool off? If I want to have sex with 27 guys because I am the star of an Anita Blake novel and they're all incredibly hot guys who will give me five orgasms each, why would that say jack shit about me as a person or my self-respect? Now if I did it because male attention is the only thing that makes me feel real, then yes, I have no self respect. But women with no self respect can be timid self-hating virgins who think a man will never look at them, and are probably right, as well as skanks who make out with each other in bars to get male attention (and in fact at different stages in their lives these might be the SAME WOMEN.) Your sexual behavior is not a good proxy for your self-respect, and it's people like Wendy Shalit who push the notion that it is who end up harming the self-respect of women.

The Washington Post article quotes Shalit as saying "We continually malign the good girl as 'repressed'."

I'm wondering who "we" is here. Is it Shalit herself doing this? Is she suggesting it's her warped vision of "older feminists"? Or is it society at large?

I agree that dressing modestly while cooking, say, bacon could be helpful, because nobody wants a grease burn on their chest, but apple pies? I think you can safely make those while naked.

"I have no self respect. But women with no self respect can be timid self-hating virgins who think a man will never look at them, and are probably right..."

What exactly makes a virgin "self-hating"? I'm a virgin because I want to be. I've had several opportunities to have sex, but I chose not to because I didn't want to, not because I hate myself. I don't want to get Herpes like one of friends or experience some of the many negative consequences that can come with casual sex. I respect myself enough to know that I'm worth more than a casual encounter. There is nothing self-hating about that.

I'm still stuck on her claim that there's some sort of appreciable "modesty" movement. Shalit cherry-picks anecdotes, trusts the perspective of men over the perspective of women, and acts like she's come up with something rebellious in doing exactly what everyone has always told women to do. She's pure disingenuousness.

It's really funny how the right hates feminism except when appropriating its language to forward their agenda.
This is why I think you can't be conservative & a feminist (I don't count libertarian as conservative, b/c most of the conservatives I know want more government monitoring Teh Moralz while the libertarians want less)--they can use the language but consistently miss the point.

Argh.
When will people realize that feminism and equality are about choice?

Women can now CHOOSE to dress how they want. It's all about the choice you make for yourself, not anyone else. I have friends who are Orthodox Jews who dress very modestly, and friends who are almost never "modest". But both of them are dressing for themselves, not anyone else.

It's not liberating to dress modestly or to dress provocatively. It's liberating to dress how YOU want to. We have that right and it's about damn time people realize that.

Grr. Argh.

Also, can we please stop equating abstinence-only education and being totally uninformed about your own sexual decisions with liberation? Please.

Nicole: Choosing when to become sexually active (with the gender your attracted to) IS a feminist decision. If you haven't found the right partner yet; if you don't feel you're in the right place/time in your life for sexual activity, etc., that's great. You are sex determining your own sex life. Now, if you were to eschew sex because of a purity/dirtiness concept, that's probably influenced by patriarchial body/sex/woman-hate. Being conscious of that doesn't mean one ought to start sexual activity prematurely ;its part of a process.

I don't think that what Shalit is proposing has much to do with real feminist decision making in light of consciousness raising. She's pushing the traditional concepts of virginity as equaling virtue; it doesn't. Its a state of your sexual identity (though the whole concept of virginity itself is dubious...what does one mean by that, is one simply "unmarried" as in the 1st Century AD concept? Has one been cloistered? Kept from all male contact other than one's immediate relatives? Does one have an intact hymen, but has "kissed" and "danced" with a member of the opposite sex? Does one not have a hymen at all, but has never had vaginal intercourse with a male (but perhaps has had sexual relations with another woman?...anybody remember "Chasing Amy"?). Virginity is nebulous and not a defined state of being. If you want to define what that term means for you, go ahead. Personally, I'd rather see it go the way of the dowry in Western culture.

Bright Blessings & Peace

I thought abstinence only sex education was "lets pretend it does not happen"

And modest dressing was about lowering men also to the level of beasts with raging hormones.

Why do we take these people seriously and buy their books?

"'I have no self respect. But women with no self respect can be timid self-hating virgins who think a man will never look at them, and are probably right...'

"What exactly makes a virgin 'self-hating'?"

The fact that someone can be A and B at the same time does *not* necessarily mean all people who are B are also A.

As for modest clothes, ever noticed how some mothers who have no problem finding modest t-shirts and jeans for themselves complain that they can't find modest t-shirts and jeans for teen daughters who are the same size as they are?

Yeah, you know how I dress? However I fucking want. I don't think of it as either modest or provocative. If it's hot, I wear tank tops and skirts. If it's cold, I wear jeans and sweaters. I think about whether or not the outfit looks "good" on me or not, but not whether my outfit is going to make guys look at me or treat me "respectfully" because I "look" like a virgin. Because how I dress should have absolutely nothing to do with how much respect I get while walking down the street. And when it does, that's not my fault or problem.

I think that all feminists would agree that objectification of the female body is bad (hey, look at that airbrushed model in the ad for bikinis on the sidebar!). But there's a big difference between fighting the oppression and objectification of the female body and the patriarchal structure that encourages some women to conform to strict standards and calling women who want to have sex and wear a low-cut tops sluts.

It's funny how much people judge you by the way you dress. My everyday workwear is what I call emo-hipster-chic--lots of cute tee's & jeans b/c I work in a messy environment (Art supply store & gallery). I spend my days hanging pics & organizing oil pastels & things get messy fast, so I'm not going to ruin my nice clothes.
Last friday was the closing party of my art show, so I was dressed-up. My artwork tends to be based in history & literature with a feminist spin so it seemed appropriate that I wear my "old timey" dress up clothes. When I'm clubbing or just not at work, I tend to dress EGL (Elegant gothic lolita).
Everyone fawned over me for wearing a dress & heels & told me how much nicer I looked than when I was at work. FtW? I was a little insulted. I try to be neat & well-groomed at work, but I guess I'm only "pretty" when I'm dressed like a lady.

Okay, Nicole, let me rephrase:

At different stages in her life, the same woman might be a virgin who is timid and hates herself because she is a virgin, and she can only find validation in male approval, and later in life she could be someone who makes out with other women in bars for male approval.

When I was a virgin I certainly did not hate myself, for being a virgin or for anything else. I had to unlearn the belief that male sexuality inherently degrades women in order to be willing to have sex, because I wasn't willing to be degraded, and as a result I may have missed out on some fun -- but I didn't hate myself or look down on myself in any way. However, my point was that it is possible to be a virgin because you have no self-esteem, just as it is possible to be a bar skank because you have no self-esteem, therefore sexual behavior is not a good descriptor of a woman's self esteem. A woman who has sex with a lot of men because she enjoys men and they are hot and they make her feel good may have high self esteem, and a virgin who is waiting for a guy she really loves and trusts and is attracted to because that's what would make her feel good may have high self esteem. It's all about *why* you do what you do, not that you do it, and since no one but you really knows why, no one but you really can judge you.

People like Wendy Shalit are in the business of judging other women, assuming that if a woman is a virgin, it's because she values herself highly, and if she has sex with multiple partners, it's because she thinks poorly of herself. But that is a mindset that values women as property of men, where a woman who is "untouched" has higher value than a woman who is "used." If you look at it from the perspective of the woman rather than men (and it's amazing how hard it is for even women to do this, given our culture), the woman who has had sex with multiple partners is experienced and has probably had a great deal of fun in her life. As long as the woman had sex to please herself, not to get male attention because she feels empty without men paying attention to her, how can anyone think that seeking pleasure would be something you'd do for *low* self-esteem?

I feel the need to repeat myself from the "marry a rich guy" thread. People mistake social phenomena when they only judge outcomes, because intentions matter. Society (as manifest in the media and politically-motivated busybody assholes) tends to judge outcomes only, but that's an incomplete, counterproductive and -- most of all -- patronizing way to judge people.

In this instance, you can't judge why a woman is dressing modestly or engaging in/refraining from sexual acts by the fact of what she does, because the "why" could be anywhere on a spectrum of at least two extremes. Is a woman a virgin because she is uneducated about her body and taught to loathe what she does not understand? Is she a virgin because she is intimately educated about her body and takes such pride in it that she chooses her first sexual partner very carefully? Either possibility easily could exist, so any assertion that one possibility must be the case for all women who identify as "virgin" is presumptious and ignorant.

The differences between feminism and the likes of Wendy Shalit are twofold: (1) feminism acknowledges the ambiguity in the "why" and (2) feminism cares that the answer really boils down to "because, with knowledge, you are doing what you want to do." Wendy Shalit cares that the "why" always be the same for all people, and that "why" serves her goal of manipulating society to her particular vision. Feminism is messier and more complicated, but it's also rooted in freedom and self-determination, concepts which Americans claim to think are pretty cool sometimes.

I listened to Shalit's interview on Diana Reim (which was the first time I'd heard of her new book).

I have not read her book but the interview was filled with nothing but highly dubious ancedotes. I don't think even Diana Reim quite believed Wendy's little stories, which were either taken out of context, idiomatic (meaning not reflective of a general cultural change) or frankly, I wonder if not downright made up (which would be the hardest charge to prove).

Wendy Shalit reminds me a lot of Christina Hoff Summers who also sources her books with NOTHING BUT ANCEDOTES. It's policy by ancedote. Maybe Shalit's book cites some larger surveys but I doubt it.

I think what's so crazy about Shalit is that she'd group ALL women who have sex, even with their much-loved, monogamous parters, as "girls gone wild." You don't even have to be having multiple partners. And she's advocating this not from an expressly religious point of view, but from the concept that women are harmed by unmarried sex, period. That's almost more pernicious than a strictly religious point of view, which at least has g-d to explain why women should not have sex. Under Shalit's theory, women are just "naturally" either sluts or virgins, with no middle ground.

Feminism at its best

ack, there was supposed to be a picture of that Modest swimwear

That's what drives me crazy, too, nausicaa.

I am 25 years old and I've had sex with ONE person and one person only. We've been together for almost 5 years but we're not married (and may never be). And yet my behavior is somehow damaging me? Because we didn't promose to love each other foreverandever while slipping rings on eachother's fingers? HAH

Wedding bands do not protect people from heartbreak, disappointment or regret.

"Wedding bands do not protect people from heartbreak, disappointment or regret."

Right. And also, heartbreak, disappointment and regret are a part of growing up and being human. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't think she was inextricably ruined by going through a couple of serious relationships (even including sex) before she picked the one person to have kids and buy property with (i.e., marry or something like it). Maybe she'd get lucky and find the right one the first time around, and maybe not!

Not to mention the total double-standard that it's only women we have to protect from heartbreak and disappointment. Men are tough enough to handle it and make their own decisions.

"Not to mention the total double-standard that it's only women we have to protect from heartbreak and disappointment. Men are tough enough to handle it and make their own decisions."

This is what annoys me about many who preach sexual morality. Men should be held to the same standards as women. It always angers me to hear men call girls sluts or expect to date virgins when they've been far more promiscuous than most women. I've called guys sluts before, and I think it should be a gender neutral term. Men should start being held accountable for their sexual actions the same way women have throughout history.

I think that we should just abolish the term "slut" entirely and stopping judging people for their sexual choices when they do not purposely injure another person (i.e. purposely spreading HIV/STDs, rape, unfaithfulness in a monogamous relationship).

Arrgh. Pregnancy has made my already ample bosom extraordinarily abundant--to the point that, unless I'm wearing a turtleneck, I'm probably showing some cleavage. I'm sick and tired of getting leered at on the metro. When it is 90 degrees outside, I will dress however the fuck I need to be comfortable and especially to avoid overheating. Your ability to see my boobs has NOTHING to do with my sexual behaviour or self-respect and EVERYTHING to do with your inability to see me as human rather than an object for your amusement.

Also, modestly dressed girls are suspectable to acts of "unbrazen kindness?" Gosh, I didn't know that a girl in a halter top was by definition a cruel bitch. And why does being kind always seem to be the role of girls and women?

What the fuck is modesty anyway? That question probably wasn't. I'd rather my modesty be based on what I say, not what I wear and do between the sheets (which isn't as exciting as what Shalit apparently thinks a proper feminist should be doing).

"When it is 90 degrees outside, I will dress however the fuck I need to be comfortable and especially to avoid overheating. Your ability to see my boobs has NOTHING to do with my sexual behaviour or self-respect and EVERYTHING to do with your inability to see me as human rather than an object for your amusement."

Exactly! I just got into precisely this argument this morning when I had the audacity to take off the sweater I brought for work during my walk and metro ride.

Crap...now this woman is making me feel like I need a shower just because I (a) generally dress modestly [in public] (b) try my damnedest to be kind (c) think it's perfectly acceptable to be abstinent, and (d) love to bake apple pies [although, since that is not in public I'm often not dressed modestly while baking].

Do you think that I swear like a sailor, lived with my husband for 6 years before marrying, and think abstinence only programs are idiotic makes me sufficiently "feminist" or do I need to go trot down First Street in a black teddy?

I certainly wouldn't want this woman to accidentally class me with herself.

Modest dress isn't all it's cracked up to be. There have been many studies lately showing that those who dress modestly have Vitamin D deficiency due to lack to sunlight. A single search gives quite a list of studies on many different groups.

Word yellownumbers and wealhtheow.

I think all this talk about dressing modestly and covering up all the more promotes that idea that women have things they need to cover up and that our beautiful bodies somehow unfairly provoke men to act unruly. Total crap.

The problem is when people only see our bodies in a sexualized context, leading them to be outraged when (gasp!) a woman's breast is exposed in public while breastfeeding. But visible cleavage or a high hem line don't equal "sexualization."

Your ability to see my boobs has NOTHING to do with my sexual behaviour or self-respect and EVERYTHING to do with your inability to see me as human rather than an object for your amusement.

Absolutely. It took me years to understand that. I have the oversized boob gene (34HH) and started developing at age 11. I spent more than a decade feeling guilty when men gawked at my chest and being ashamed of having breasts at all.

I wish someone had told me this (and I wish I had been able to really hear it) when I was 11. How about in addition to sex ed, we add a don't be ashamed of your body class?

Kristen, I still feel guilty and dirty when men stare at my breasts. I started developing in 4th grade--and it took me until I was 23 to figure out that the reason I habitually slumped my shoulders and hunched over was because I was ashamed of having larger breasts than "normal."

One of these days I'm really going to screw my courage to the sticking point and ask in a loud voice "Why are you staring at my BREASTS?"

And about this lady, Ms Shallit, why is a non-shared bathroom "modest" A shared bathroom would make you refrain from indulging in other-gender-bashing behavior, would it not?

Further on, pleas DONT tell me people like her are taken seriously...

If the modern culture and modern feminism basically reject modesty, what is wrong with bringing it back? Do you really have a choice to be modest - that is, a choice which is respected - if you get trashed by feminists and modern society for being repressed?

I'm going to gouge the eyeballs out of the next person who tells me to dress sexier. I dress for myself, and have no desire to show my body to those whom I don't want to see it. I have even less desire to give men a sexual thrill. In the work environment, I can think of nothing more demeaning to myself or to the men I work with than to dress in a sexualised manner. My job requires my brain, not my body.

Rant over.

Oenophile--I don't think feminists on this thread are trashing women for dressing modestly, just for equating "modest dress" or "virginity" with virtue or self-control.

To Ms. Shallit, personally, I prefer to be brazenly kind. Just sayin'.

Ismone,

So modesty gals, if you want to push for a new generation of chaste, obedient girls who bake apple pies (seriously that's in there), go for it. But don't try to use feminism to do it.

So you can't be chaste and be a feminist. So much for choice.....

"Chaste" and "celibate," though related, are two entirely different words:

chaste
–adjective, chast·er, chast·est.
1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous.
2. virgin.
3. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate.
4. free from obscenity; decent: chaste conversation.
5. undefiled or stainless: chaste, white snow.
6. pure in style; not excessively ornamented; simple.
7. Obsolete. unmarried.

. . . the point being that the term "chastity" refers to "purity" and "virtue." Whether or not one is celibate has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is virtuous. And I have no interest in determining whether or not women are "pure." Just throwing that out there. To no one in particular.

This issue is really interesting to me because I just recently became a feminist after becoming uncomfortable with what I see as sexism in Christianity. I never had a problem with my basic Christian morals, though, so now I'm sorting through which ones I still believe in and which I don't.

The first thing that comes to my mind here is that feminism is about choice. Ideally, all women - all people - should be able to dress as sexily or as modestly as they want to, based on how they feel and what they believe in.

However, I don't think we currently have such free choice. We have, on one hand, pressure from our sexist society telling us that to popular and to "catch a man" (which is, they tell us, the point of our lives) we have to show some skin, because we're just sex objects after all. Then the same sexist society tells us that to be "good girls" and to keep a man, we have to dress modestly. This is wrapped up with the double standard.

So I don't think it's surprising that people who care about women's rights could come to either conclusion, because there is the wrong kind of pressure coming from both sides. I don't know how to eliminate that pressure or how to take a course true to feminism in the midst of it. Personally, I dress fairly modestly, as American fashion goes. I'm comfortable with that, but I'm also defensive about my right to show my curves, because, even when I was super Christian, I could still see that 1) blaming women for men's lust is not fair and 2) if showing that you have breasts and hips is impure, then looking female is impure, and that's clearly sexist.

I don't think women should be blamed for the fact that men objectify them when they dress sexy, but I hate that objectification so much that I will take what I think are reasonable and not excessively difficult measures to avoid it. And then, there are women who offer themselves as sex objects (I don't mean just showing skin, I mean really being sex objects and proud of it). I feel bad for them, because I think they see that as the only way they can get power over men in this patriarchy, which isn't their fault, and also because I think the power they're after isn't really empowering in the end. But that's just my view of things, and a lot of them really think it's great, so who am I to tell them to stop?

But abstinence-only programs? Are stupid.

and wealhtheow, totally say that next time.