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.

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

There's been several explanations on this thread on how it's not what you do, but why you do it.

So people, quit disagreeing with each other when you really don't.

Damn, everything has to be fetishized (is that a word?) Now, there's a modesty movement?
I personally prefer a sexier look. When I dress up in my vinyl wrestling costume I truly enjoy my look. But, they're just clothes, and I just like wearin' em, I'm not making a bold statement! I have a friend who has always worn modest, baggy clothes becuase that's what she like and that's what makes her feel comfortable. Not one of her large t shirts reads: "modesty rules!"
I don't have a problem with modesty, nor do I have a problem with virginity, but when people feel the need to wear silver rings, attend purity balls, and buy "true love waits" t shirts, that's when I start rolling my eyes.

oenophile, who on earth are you arguing with?

SarahMC,

Did you bother to read Jessica's post? Modesty is anti-feminist, regressive, dangerous, and irresponsible. (Read her Guardian UK article as well.)

Heaven forbid anyone encourage a woman to not screw everyone around... if you are modest for yourself, fine, but you're an anti-feminist if you encourage others to do it. Ridiculous.

First of all, Oenophile, what does dressing modestly have to do with screwing everyone around? We all know you have some very anti-feminist tendencies (which come out in your writing when you're angry), so I shouldn't be surprised that you equate wearing a short skirt with being a slut. But Jessica said nothing that indicates she thinks it's anti-feminist to dress modestly (whatever that means). It's anti-feminist to tell girls & women that they're SLUTS if they dress "immodestly." It's anti-feminist to put women into two camps - the chaste and the slutty. And it's anti-feminist to suggest that it's women's fault men objectify them when they dress accordingly in the summertime.

oenophile:

No... you're just an "anti-feminist" if you equate being a good and virtuous female with dressing modestly and saving sex until marriage, and suggesting that those who do otherwise are not.

Modesty is anti-feminist, regressive, dangerous, and irresponsible.

Don't you think you're using slight hyperbole here? No where did I read this in either of Jessica's posts. You're definitely missing the point.

"Heaven forbid anyone encourage a woman not to screw anyone around."

Sweetie, if you have proper reasons ANYONE (not just women) should not to want to screw around, then yes, by all means feel free to argue. As long as it has to do with a person's enjoyment of things.

However, if your reasons go along the lines of "it will make her look cheap!" or "what will men think?", then yes, it is likely nobody here will even begin to agree with you.

This chastity tripe creates a false dichotomy. One can either go "wild" or "mild," which is a sanitized way to say "Madonna or whore."

There are, in fact, more options. There are, in addition, good times for the same woman to be "mild" or "wild," suiting her self-expression and goals.

Oenophile,

Here is the sentence that comes before the one you quoted in response to my earlier post:

We don't think that women's moral compass is located in between our legs and that what we do sexually (or how we dress, as Shalit seems to be so concerned with) has anything to do with how good of a person we are.

Jessica then goes on to critique those who want conformity, that is, to be a good woman you have to be "chaste" "obedient" and bake pies. Not that there is anything wrong with those qualities if CHOSEN, but there is something wrong with them if socially mandated. I think. And I think Jessica and the others on this thread think.

Hey everyone, this is why some of us have a pact to not respond to Oenophile's inflammatory remarks. Anyone want to join?

Just sayin'.

I love the dichotomy. You can either dress "provocatively" and be a sex object for men, or you can dress "modestly" and be a service object. What a choice.

I also never really got the whole sex as a commodity to be "given away" thing. Sex is the ultimate renewable resource. Ya you got to be careful as lots of unpleasant things can happen, but really one can have all the sex they want and still be able to have more.

I think alot of this just comes from an anti-sexual/uppity women mentality. Whether its insecure men or anti-feminist women, any deviation from tradition has to be attacked. The more incedious ones use the language and culture of feminism against it.

"First of all, Oenophile, what does dressing modestly have to do with screwing everyone around?"

Good point. Covering up everything sure doesn't stop a woman from screwing a stranger (yes, asking for an arranged marriage then screwing a stranger whom one met and married a few hours ago is still screwing a stranger) or encouraging her daughters to do so too.

Sex is the ultimate renewable resource.
That is hellaciously quotable, giffy. I hope you don’t mind…

"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."

Yeah, I don't exactly dress very provocatively either...I work in an office, I wear appropriate clothes for my job, and when I'm NOT at work my main concern is comfort, not "Ooo, who'll think I'm sexy?" There ARE times when I want to look nice...nice dinners, weddings, parties, that sort of thing. But what other people will think isn't nearly as important as what I think.

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.

Having made more apple pies than I can count, I can safely say that the last thing I want to do naked or topless is use my sharp chef's knife to chop up apples. Seems like a kitchen safety filmstrip waiting to happen.

(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)

This is only half of the picture, though. While "libertarians" (assuming we mean the American perversion of the term) don't want a (potentially accountable, or even democratic) government exercising any influence on people's lives, they have no objection whatsoever to unaccountable private institutions exercising the very same power.

Damn, everything has to be fetishized (is that a word?) Now, there's a modesty movement?

That's the irony of this "modest dress" non-movement, the abstinence non-movement, and all this other fundamentalist crap. In condemning anything that is remotely sexual, they reveal that they sexualise damn near everything.

"Good point. Covering up everything sure doesn't stop a woman from screwing a stranger (yes, asking for an arranged marriage then screwing a stranger whom one met and married a few hours ago is still screwing a stranger) or encouraging her daughters to do so too."

Yeah, I needed to respond to this-- it reminded me of the whole purity ball/virginity pledge thing, particularly an article I read in the latest issue of Marie Claire in which a young (22, I think) woman married a man she had never even kissed before who she met at the same time her sisters did--and who asked her father if he could 'court' "one of his daughters." Their 'courtship' was portrayed as being less intimate than some of the very non-sexual friendships I had with guys during high school. But that's what was expected of her--be modest and good and your father will arrange for you to marry a near-total stranger who can't even tell you apart from your (at least two) younger sisters, before you've ever had a chance to do anything with your life.
That is not the sort of life I want to be thought of as 'good' in this country, I'm sorry. When I get married, I want to marry someone I've cultivated an intimate relationship with who I KNOW I can be with forever. And I don't think it's right for a religion to both support marriage to near-total strangers and to oppose divorce.

Where is Wendy Shallit saying that women who aren't modest are whores? Direct quotes, please, not any of this nonsense about "omigod, she encourages modesty, therefore, she's anti-feminist." Surely, it is not only your side that is capable of nuance....

I think the point is not that she encourages modesty and it's certainly not the case that us feminists are all in favor of Girls Gone Wild, it's that anyone who tells women what to do and thinks they're empowering women is wrong. What's empowering is being encouraged to do WHATEVER WE WANT, be that crocheting blankets or hot lesbian porn. I agree there is a problem with GGW though, and I have my own suggestion for dealing with it:

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2007/05/pornographers-gone-wild.html

"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....."

I do believe that the comment was not meant to say that being chaste means that you can't be a feminist, BUT that you can't use feminism to PUSH the modesty agenda. Big difference.

Girls Gone Wild consists of men manipulating women into believing that flashing their breasts and engaging sex acts with each other for the camera is empowering. What I can't figure out is why the girls allow themselves to be manipulated like. They don't even get anyting out of. At least with Playboy they got a chance at modeling and some good cash, but GGW is nothing but pure exploitation of the naievity(and in some cases stupidy) of young girls.

Girls Gone Wild consists of men manipulating women into believing that flashing their breasts and engaging sex acts with each other for the camera is empowering. What I can't figure out is why the girls allow themselves to be manipulated like. They don't even get anyting out of. At least with Playboy they got a chance at modeling and some good cash, but GGW is nothing but pure exploitation of the naievity(and in some cases stupidity) of young girls.

OK. maybe a little clarification on this is in order.

Anti-feminist:
daughter: mom, i'm not comfortable in this short skirt.
mom: good. only sluts would be comfortable in that, anyway.

Anti-Feminist:
daughter mom, i'm not comfortable in this short skirt. can't i wear something longer?
mom: no, you're a pretty girl and you need to show it off. you don't want people thinking you're a lesbian, do you?

FEMINIST:
daughter: mom, i don't feel comfortable in this short skirt.
mom: that's ok, honey. you don't have to wear that just because it's trendy. what would make you feel more comfortable?

you see how only the third conversation actually deals with the daughter's concern as if it is a valid one? as if the daughter herself, and her comfort, are important? THAT is why it is feminist. it has nothing to do with what she is being told to wear...it has everything to do with her not being told to DO ANYTHING but be her authentic self.

"OK. maybe a little clarification on this is in order.

"Anti-feminist:
daughter: mom, i'm not comfortable in this short skirt.
mom: good. only sluts would be comfortable in that, anyway.

"Anti-Feminist:
daughter mom, i'm not comfortable in this short skirt. can't i wear something longer?
mom: no, you're a pretty girl and you need to show it off. you don't want people thinking you're a lesbian, do you?

"FEMINIST:
daughter: mom, i don't feel comfortable in this short skirt.
mom: that's ok, honey. you don't have to wear that just because it's trendy. what would make you feel more comfortable?"

Also, don't forget

Anti-feminist:
daughter: mom, i'm not comfortable in this short skirt.
mom: good. your legs are too ugly to show in public.

Just plain stupid:
daughter: mom, i'm not comfortable in this short skirt.
mom: so what if you get bullied for showing your legs in public? stop caring what anyone else [besides me!] thinks.

I want to respond specifically to Nicole and Oenophile . . . what is troubling to me is not individual women who choose to dress "modestly" (I have have a lot of problems with that word) or choose to be chaste. I have a major problem with individuals like Shalit and Eden who make a living out of demonizing and infantalizing grown women's sexual choices. In my group of friends, there are people who wear low cut-shirts an short skirts, those who don't, those who are sexually active, those who aren't (and they aren't easily categorized along the modest-and-chaste lines . . .), and we've had pretty intense discussions about sex and our choices, but the big thing is that we don't put down those we disagree with - we respect grown women making their choices. And while writers like Shalit and Eden don't say "Women who have sex before marriage are dirty sluts," other troubling generalizations are made such as: sexually active women are duped by men, sexually active women are emotionally repressed, sexually active women are desperate and can't accept love, etc, so forth. These kinds of generalizations about the majority of women in this country is obnoxious to me and anti-feminist in general. I will honor and respect women's personal choices to wait until marriage for sex or to wear clothing that is modest. I will not, however, respect a woman who says I am incapable of really loving my husband because I got some in college.

Shalit’s other book is titled “A RETURN TO MODESTY: Discovering the Lost Virtue�. That title in and of itself is offensive and judgmental. We really don’t need to look any further. The title implies: 1- Modesty (defined apparently as dressing in ways that do not show skin, and not having premarital sex) is a virtue. It follows that the lack of it is a vice. 2- That it is a lost virtue. Read: OMG! Young women are so slutty these days.

"I will honor and respect women's personal choices to wait until marriage for sex or to wear clothing that is modest. I will not, however, respect a woman who says I am incapable of really loving my husband because I got some in college."

Right on, Johanna.

I read an excerpt from Ms. Shalit's Modesty book years ago. She made the claim that children are "naturally modest" and I thought, whooo! this woman doesn't know kids, or remember her own childhood very clearly! Ever chased a happy little streaker around the house? Or seen a child (of either sex) lift up their shirt to suckle their teddy bear? It's only later, when kids learn that their body can be a source of embarrassment and discomfort as well as pleasure, that they go through a prudish stage.

Johanna- THANK YOU! Exactly! Way to be all eloquent and stuff.

And yeah, this Shalit woman is pretty much full of shit. If she has any daughters (now or in the future- she is only like 32 or so) I pity them. I am imagining being sent to school in sweater sets, pleated skirts that reach mid-calf, and saddle shoes. Like a costume from Grease. And being told your whole life that your "pocketbook" (or "down there") is dirty and should only be touched by your husband.

Dear oenophile

Duh. Yeah, and nowhere in this article it says "Young women can't dress modestly because it's anti-feminist". If you just want to drop inflammatory statements so you can go out and whine to the world that feminism doesn't accept you, say so and we won't waste our time with you.

Be-ti-na,

I love how you're so in tune with my psyche. Perhaps you just want to bitch me out because you lack anything better to do with your time?

As for modesty being a virtue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue

Yeah, sorry, but chastity and modesty have long been considered to be virtues.

Now, if you disagree with that, we can talk about why we should reconsider the conventional defintion of "virtue," but Shallit and Eden are right: modesty is a virtue.

I do believe that the comment was not meant to say that being chaste means that you can't be a feminist, BUT that you can't use feminism to PUSH the modesty agenda. Big difference.

Not really. If feminism is about choice, then why not say, "As feminists, we want to support women who choose to be modest for their own sake?"

Sorry - it's about the "choice" to be modest, so long as you don't actually don't think modesty is ever a good thing.

chastity and modesty have long been considered to be virtues.

So? Something is not true just because its been believed for a long time.

Why is it virtuous to be modest? What does modest even mean?

chastity and modesty have long been considered to be virtues.

So? Something is not true just because its been believed for a long time.

Why is it virtuous to be modest? What does modest even mean?

Shalit is trying to underhandedly demonise REAL feminism by suggesting that the notion of "sex performance parity", as espoused by "mainstream" feminists (apparently), is inevitably leading women to be sexually exploited. She's completely misrepresenting feminism as endorsing some type of Girls Gone Wild deal where vulnerable women are used and abused by men - leading to (shock horror) "crudeness" and "casual sex". She's right that women who feel pressured to be sexually available are often exploited, but to suggest that feminists are doing the pressuring is a blatant lie - and if she'd bothered to read any feminist scholars, she'd know that.

Sexual equality is not about encouraging women to have lots of sex, and making them feel unliberated if they don't, it's about creating a society in which women can make a genuine choice about what they do with their bodies, without fear of judgement or reprisal. By genuine choice, I obviously don't mean "choosing" to wear an uncomfortable outfit because you feel the need to impress men (or your mother!). The whole point of feminism is to instill in women the confidence to live their lives as they see fit without being implicitly or explicitly pressured by society or other people to behave otherwise.

Speaking of choice, the lack of self-reflexivity of some women amazes me sometimes - they don't understand that choosing to enter a beauty contest is not something they're doing in a vacuum, and that it might be useful to examine why - I mean, REALLY why - they want to participate in something that is so inherently degrading to women. It's like those women who say that they've gotten a boob job purely for themselves. I mean, how deluded can you be?

Anyway, I got a bit off topic there but essentially I am most mad at Shalit because she is trying to turn young women away from legitimate feminism and totally misrepresenting our goals. She's even implying that feminists don't advocate self-respect for women! It's just so brazen.

Plus I was interested to come back and read the "richie rich" thread again and to see Itazura refer to me as a "he". I mean, apart from the obvious sexism, it's a feminist website - if he had to make an assumption as to my gender, surely "she" would have been a more reasonable guess? I suppose for some people it's just too entrenched. I'm glad he's gone - thanks y'all for offending him!

Where is Wendy Shallit saying that women who aren't modest are whores?
Posted by: oenophile

Hi oeno - Read her books and you'll see, I promise! The supremely frustrating thing about her work is that it has a nub of truth to it: women ARE objectified sexually by the media, and lots of women and girls DO feel pressured into sexual choices they later regret. But Shalit puts this particularly nasty spin to it, equating feminism with unhappiness and despair. She also fails to recognize a vast middle ground of HUMAN (not gender) experience, where you make choices, learn, and live to tell the tale.

The other weird thing about Shalit is that she seems terrified by sex, which is why she thinks it's so OMG DANGEROUS for girls and women to have sex unmarried. I can't help but connect this to Shalit's own lack of sexual experience. The vast majority of us who have had sex can attest to the fact that it can be good, bad, or indifferent, but it's really not this life-destroying tidal wave force that Shalit seems to think it is. I mean, sometimes it is that tidal wave, but usually it's just not.

This is not to say that I think virgins are dumb, but they undeniably lack a certain amount of knowledge about how sex functions in a modern relationship.

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.

Um, seriously; how do you think we feminists dress in the workplace? Or even in everyday life? I usually have jeans and a t-shirt on when I'm hanging out. Just because I don't dig Shallit doesn't mean I wear stripper clothes to the grocery store. Nor does it mean I dress inappropriately for work. To suggest that we dress "slutty" is absurd. I dress for comfort in most situations. I know: it probably blows your mind that I could simultaneously dress "modestly" in everyday life AND be disgusted by the modesty/sex police like Shallit.

I know: it probably blows your mind that I could simultaneously dress "modestly" in everyday life AND be disgusted by the modesty/sex police like Shallit.

Sarah, if you want to pretend that I think you said you dress like a slut, go ahead.

Have fun.

Rock on.

WHY are you disguisted by the "modesty police?" Excuse me, but WHERE did Shallit say that women MUST MUST MUST dress modestly?

Honestly, I did miss that part. I thought she was chroniciling a movement towards modesty, embraced by women as their own choice and for their own comfort. The fact that such a thing pisses you off says legions about you and nothing about Ms. Shallit.

chastity and modesty have long been considered to be virtues.

So? Something is not true just because its been believed for a long time.

Why is it virtuous to be modest? What does modest even mean?

I will assume that you meant those as honest questions.

First of all, if "virtue" consists of, in part, chastity and modesty, that's just the definition.

Stubborn fact it is, but chastity and modesty are virtues.

Now, the question is: should we reconsider what it means to be a virtuous woman? That is not meant rhetorically - it's meant as a way of starting some honest discussion. That would involve talking about why modesty and chastity are virtues in the first place and why they should be removed from such. Hedonistic principles need not apply.

i would posit that modesty and chastity are virtues through judeo-christian principles- these traits serve as the good counterpart to the deadly sins of vanity and lust, respectively. so, it has those traits have their roots in christian tradition and we all now how women have been demonized and disenfranchised in traditionally partriarchial christian tradition.
since female sexuality is considered abhorrent by many fundamentalist christians, it makes sense that virtuousness in women translates into sexlessness.
f*** that noise, i say. virtue for me is all about the right balance in my lifestyle.

I don't think that we need to discard ideals about "virtue" for women so much as to re-examine them.

When we speak of a man being virtuous, it rarely has anything to do with how sexually experienced he is; rather, it means that he is honourable, compassionate, and just generally a decent human being. Likewise, a man's quality of modesty is rarely spoken in terms of how much leg he's showing, but of whether he's given to boasting. So, when I talk about a particular woman being "virtuous" or "modest", I try to make it clear that I'm judging them by the "traditionally masculine" meanings of those terms.

Chastity, though... I recognize it's important to some, but I don't believe it should be a standard for everyone. There are lots of current catchphrases for what is good sexual behaviour: "safe, sane, and consensual", "respect yourself, respect your partner", "the flip side of freedom is responsibility", etc., but nobody's come up with a good one-word term for "the state of being sexually ethical".

chastity and modesty have long been considered to be virtues.

The same can be said of obedience, ignorance, blind faith, and racial purity. The fact that these things — like sexual ignorance — have long been considered to be virtues. In itself, this means nothing.

Anything can be made into a virtue by an ideology interested in encouraging it. The real question is why something has been dubbed a virtue.

In the case of sexual ignorance and "modesty" (cardinal virtues in women, fairly unimportant in men), the answer is fairly obvious. A woman's value was long conceived in terms of exchange value (what kind of price could she bring her father?). Keeping in mind the desire to maximise the exchange value of one's daughters, it makes perfect sense that modesty (protecting the proprietary information, first of her father, then of her husband) would be of great importance. Sexual ignorance, on the other hand, ensured that her husband would have complete control of how she understood sex, and that he would not have to meet a standard set by someone other than himself. It is essentially the same logic that led slaveholders of various eras (including our own) to prefer small children: get them while they're young and they'll literally know nothing other than doing what they're told.

chastity and modesty have long been considered to be virtues.

The same can be said of obedience, ignorance, blind faith, and racial purity. The fact that these things — like sexual ignorance — have long been considered to be virtues. In itself, this means nothing.

Anything can be made into a virtue by an ideology interested in encouraging it. The real question is why something has been dubbed a virtue.

In the case of sexual ignorance and "modesty" (cardinal virtues in women, fairly unimportant in men), the answer is fairly obvious. A woman's value was long conceived in terms of exchange value (what kind of price could she bring her father?). Keeping in mind the desire to maximise the exchange value of one's daughters, it makes perfect sense that modesty (protecting the proprietary information, first of her father, then of her husband) would be of great importance. Sexual ignorance, on the other hand, ensured that her husband would have complete control of how she understood sex, and that he would not have to meet a standard set by someone other than himself. It is essentially the same logic that led slaveholders of various eras (including our own) to prefer small children: get them while they're young and they'll literally know nothing other than doing what they're told.

WHY are you disguisted by the "modesty police?" Excuse me, but WHERE did Shallit say that women MUST MUST MUST dress modestly?

The upshot of her work is that it is better and more "natural" for women to dress modestly and be chaste. She doesn't say "you must dress modestly," nor does she approach the so-called modesty movement from an anthropoligical perspective. She is very, very clearly making positive prescriptions for how women should behave. There's really no way around it, oenophile.

And the problem with "modesty" as a virtue is that Shalit concentrates mainly on the clothes. I have no problem with people who want to encourage girls to see themselves as more than sex objects, but the exclusive focus on clothing seems to contain the view that girls' bodies are inherently sinful and tempting to men. "Modesty" (in its non-gendered, non-sexualized form) is much more than what you wear: it's an attitude of humbleness towards the world, and openness to having your views challenged and changed because you understand that you are not perfect. I submit that Ms. Shalit, in this respect, is the opposite of modest, indeed.

So, Oenophile, modesty and chastity are virtues... because modesty and chastity are virtues. Okeyyy.
To echo Shiftercat, "When we speak of a man being virtuous, it rarely has anything to do with how sexually experienced he is; rather, it means that he is honourable, compassionate, and just generally a decent human being." Why should women be held to an arbitrary standard of dress in order to be considered virtuous? Just because female bodies are considered shameful throughout most of the world doesn't mean it's TRUE. And nobody's really answered my question re: what "modesty" actually means. Is it immodest (and un-virtuous) to wear a halter top in 90 degree weather? What are we "allowed" to wear in order to stay within the boundaries of virtue?

Hey all... this is a part i'm really really confused by. I think i'm getting the jist of feminism, but this is one issue where I have a real hard time figuring it out...

It's pretty darn obvious i'm missing some important subtlety.

Here's the conflict i'm having.

Obviously a lot of feminism is dealing with the sexually objeficating media. They are fighting the consumerim media that is trying to use the female body as a way to sell products... As well as fighting the fact the media is always promoting certain types of stereotypes and roles of how a girl/woman should be (ussually limited to a "sexual bimbo"). This includes much of the self-esteem lowering too.

So...

Telling women that they should look like barbie dolls, flaunt their sexuality, and obsess about getting the right clothes and cosmetics to look as much of a sex object as possible... and obsessing to get sexual power (instead of develop intelectually or career wise or any of the other ways besides sexually) = bad.

Ok, so here comes the second part...

Then...

On the on the other hand, when women do in fact become obsessed with being sexual objects and going around flaunting sexuality...

When men or other organizations point it out as these women being superficial, or being too much of an object...

Then again, they too are considered repressive... and controlling.

In other words, the sense i'm kind of getting is like

--) If you're going around flaunting your sexuality and trying to be sexual object, and trying to sleep with as many men as possible, then you are un-feminist and controlled by the sexist media

--) If you aren't going around and flaunting your sexuality, and are deciding to settle down, and not be as sexual, then you are controlled by the patriarchical structures and you are an unfeminist.

Now, that's the amateurish perception I had until reading this article. I'm obviously way off on how i'm reading something. But i'm even more confused right now.

Now I realize, things are never black and white, and I'm obviously missing some very important subtleties in the simplification process. I'd really love to hear about what I'm missing. This one has been confusing me for a while.

Alek, I think what you're missing is that the "empowerful" porny culture and the "modesty" movement are two sides of the same coin.

Both insist that women's bodies *are* "sex." It's like that phrase "Sex sells;" what it's really implying is "Women's bodies sell."

There is no feminist opposition to dressing modestly.
The problem is the movement which claims that women must "protect" men from sexual thoughts by dressing modestly.
The problem is women who claim that by dressing modestly they are necessarily respecting themselves more than women who dress some other way. The problem is with the fact that "modesty" has no real hard-and-fast definition.

Is that more clear?

Additionally, Alek:
The modesty movement is just as problematic as the "pornification" issue because it advances a double standard.

Women's bodies are viewed as a public commodity while men's are not. People project all their issues onto women's bodies and their clothing choices.

A man wearing no shirt, exposing his entire torso, does not create controversy. But a woman wearing a strappy tank top, exposing MUCH LESS skin, is "immodest" and "slutty?" Women wear certain items of clothing for all sorts of reasons. That we have breasts, which are extremely sexualized in our culture, is not our problem.
We are not necessarily trying to get attention from *you*. [That's a general "you"]
We are not necessarily trying to get attention *at all*. Sometimes we just want to be comfortable and wear something we think is pretty. We should not be shamed for simply living our lives and not hurting anyone.