More on modesty

Anne Zook and Jonathan Dresner both take me to task (though I had my defenders -- namely XRLQ) for my post on modesty yesterday.

Let's review a bit.

I wrote: how empowering, not to mention erotically fulfilling, traditional sex roles can be for women!

Anne responded:

Far from accepting today's world, far from dealing realistically with the growing problem of internet erotica, you're advocating a return to "traditional sex roles."

Might I remind you that "traditional" sex roles encompass men as the aggressors and instigators and women as near-passive objects? Men coaxing, persuading, and even forcing women into sex while the woman bears all of the shame, the guilt, and most of the potential consequences of the encounter?

The biggest problem with a woman's "traditional sex role" is a man's "traditional sex role."

If I could rephrase what I had written, I would have said "it would be a mistake to assume that traditional sex roles did not hold powerful erotic potential for women." That more accurately captures what I was trying to say, and I appreciate the corrective.

I am NOT advocating a return to traditional sex roles. Neither is Wolf, and neither (really) is Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, who elsewhere has written vigorously in favor of women's ordination to the pastorate of evangelical churches. The same woman who reviewed "A Return to Modesty" in such glowing terms also wrote this:

That men and women are different somehow is undeniable, but pinpointing those differences often proves a difficult task. The moment we say “women are gentle” we instantly think of men who are more so and women who are not at all; as soon as we assert “men are aggressive” contrary examples come to mind. The very fact that we tend to associate certain traits with one group, and then are forced to apply them to the other, reveals the stereotype as a shortcut for thought, preferred by lazy minds and lazy societies. At the very least, we are hard pressed to say that any set of characteristics, especially so protean as those of human beings, can constitute an “ontological” difference.

But I'm digressing. What I ought to have made clear is that sexual modesty requires taking responsibility for the signals our bodies send. Women are responsible for how they dress; men are responsible for how they react to women's dress. The reverse is also true. I see no reason why responsibility must be an "either/or" and not a "both/and"!

Anne is concerned that I am blaming women for men's failure to exercise self-control. That was certainly not my intent! I agree completely with Anne that porn is primarily a male problem. Indeed, when I made the assertion that all men who consume porn were complicit in Lara Roxx's HIV-status, I was arguing that male responsibility extends a good deal further than most are prepared to admit. And when men become so overwhelmed by pornographic images that they have difficulty being aroused by "real women", the primary culpability is still theirs. But while we work against pornography and a culture that objectifies and exploits the female body, we can also point out that modesty offers tremendous rewards and benefits to women as well.

Here is something else I should have said, and it comes after 24 hours of reflection:

A culture in which the body is exposed and sexualized means a culture in which the individual inside the body is devalued. Concealing the body should not be seen merely as a strategy to enhance arousal (though it may have that salutary effect). Rather, modesty (for both men and women) is about the conscious choice not to distract, disconcert, or unnecessarily arouse those with whom you are interacting in the public sphere. We live in a culture in which both men and women have increasing difficulty distinguishing the appearance of their own flesh from the value they place on their own lives. To practice modesty is to make the individual decision to "opt out" of the game, to refuse to play by the cruel and capricious rules of our sexualized consumer culture.

Jonathan thinks I am -- like most Christians -- too enamored of the idea that the exposed body is always a sexual body. He writes:

The idea that the body should be hidden because of its sexual potential (not for warmth, or neatness, or because pockets are convenient, but for shame) is at the root of the titilating erotic power you claim is present in more hidden flesh. Exposure is bad because it seems to reveal our self-knowledge of our sexual nature, and creates an environment in which others are also aware of our sexual nature. But the question arises: why should they care? They care because we still think that the exposed body is inherently sexual, and we think that because we are ashamed or afraid of that sexual potential.

What if the exposed body were just the exposed body? What if all it revealed was flesh? What if we realized that to view was not to possess; that to expose was not to offer? (also that to cover was not necessarily to hide) ?

I like his second paragraph a lot. But my Christian theology tells me that men and women were created to desire each other; our bodies our inherently sexually desireable. Sex is, at some level, meant to be intensely visual. (Especially, but by no means exclusively, for men). This is true cross-culturally (though many cultures eroticize different parts of the body). Nakedness and sexuality are linked by design, Christians argue, even though exposure to too many naked bodies can lead to a drop in libidinousness (Wolf's point). But Jonathan seems to be making a rather quixotic argument: that the display of the human body and an individual's erotic potential are not inextricably linked. I'm fairly certain that for most folks in our culture, that "linkage" (whether cultural or divine in origin) is fairly well set in their minds. Responding to that link with a call to modesty and self-restraint for everyone seems like a far better strategy than trying to convince teenage boys that a woman's breasts are really just utilitarian sacks of flesh!

Anyhow, the dialogue is going to continue.

Comments

[Miss O'Hara]

Another wonderful post. Your point about how men and women find each other inherently desirable is excellent. I think presentation is also key, which is why fashion can (and has) dictates the morality of a society. As goes the family, after all. And if we cannot have strong marital bonds, unassaulted by overt and perpetual sexuality and overexposure...

[Mumcat]

So why is it men are allowed to run around without shirts? Isn't it at least partially because they're comfortable that way and not necessarily because it is advertising for a mate or trying to look desirable?

No matter what a woman wears or doesn't wear, she's judged as trying to capitalize on her "assets" and attract men. This society isn't going to be equal until women can dress as they choose without men making the decision as to whether or not she's desirable and sexy because of what she is (or is not) wearing.

[Anne]

Okay, I got a few paragraphs into this and realize that with the press of today's workload, most of it will have to wait for this evening.

In the meantime, here's a thought.

I realize I'm the one who leapfrogged the discussion from sex to women's social positions in general without changing terminology, but why don't we start working on some words now?

I submit that your use of "traditional sex roles" to mean "eros" when, in my mind, the phrase carries the broader "social position" meaning might be where some of the misunderstanding began.

It's probably useful if we're able to distinguish when we're discussing eros and when we're discussing wider topics.

[Hugo]

Our desire for comfort must always be balanced by our responsibility to others, and a recognition of different standards for different settings. I am shirtless when I run, not in the classroom. Bikinis are appropriate on beaches, not on buses. Modesty is not about one particular set of standards, so much as it is about honoring other's comfort more than one's own.

The fact that women's breasts are the subject of intense desire on the part of young men means that yes, women's chests will be viewed different in public than men's will be. I fail to see how women's equality is compromised by acknowledging this, and asking women to cover what men do not.

[Mumcat]

Hugo, it's called making women responsible for men's reactions. We have to do certain things in order to prevent men from thinking/acting while men can parade around as they wish without thought. you don't see a compromised equality here? Asking women to do what men aren't asked to do simply because men see it in a particular way?

Frankly, probably very few women would want to run topless. It's uncomfortable, and the more pulchritudinous one is, the more pain there is. But not all shirtless men are runners --- nor are all of them given the bodies of Greek gods guaranteed to make women swoon. If women are so able to separate naked chests and sexual attraction, why can't men learn to do the same thing?

I stand by my statement that if this were truly an equal world, women could go topless as men do with as much reaction from men as topless men get from women. It would be a choice to go topless, not a demand that one gender bow to the demands of another.

[Hugo]

But Mumcat, you are assuming that the "hardwiring" of sexual attraction is essentially the same for men and women. While many women may find it pleasant --perhaps arousing -- to gaze at the sculpted chests of handsome men, that reaction is very different from the way in which men respond to women's breasts. I am convinced that men and women are different in terms of our sexual responses to visual stimulae.

When men rape, ogle, or catcall, they are to blame. No question. No woman can "cause" a man to lose self-control. But we also need to acknowledge that men are more "vulnerable" to visual stimulae -- and thus while we guys surely ought to exercise MUCH more self-control, women can play an equal part by concealing themselves.

Modesty is necessary, I think, because sexuality is so marvelously, deliciously powerful, and that power is encoded within our bodies and spirits, not merely in our culture. And I don't think that He made us the same way on the inside any more than on the outside.

[Xrlq]

Mumcat: you seem to be confusing equality with sameness. Men and women are, quite frankly, not the same. Women's breasts are a big deal. Men's aren't. Period.

[Mumcat]

No, I"m not equating equality with sameness. We're different physiologically. What I'm arguing is that the reasoning that "men are hardwired to find womens' breasts erotic and enticing" sounds to me very much like "It isn't my fault -- he made me do it". See where I'm coming from? It hasn't always been breasts --- in Arab countries the sight of a bit of an ankle showing from beneath a burkah is enough to entice a man to lustful activity and rape. So ankles are erotic as well? We should cover them up?

Men are aroused by breasts because they've been told/taught that they should see them as sexual objects. So women have to cover up to the extent that men no longer find them sexually stimulating --- even if that is head to toe. And even that won't protect a woman from some man's lust. So what it feels like is that women are responsible for men's reactions and we as women have to swath ourselves in yards of clothing in order that men can be comfortable in our presence.

Sorry -- that's how it sounds from where I sit. And no -- I'm not confusing equality with sameness. I'm arguing that equality means we can be different physiologically but still respectful of each other in allowing each other the freedom to go shirtless if that is what is comfortable to us without having to worry about who is going to take offense/get overstimulated and act out in a sexual manner about it.

[Xrlq]

Men are aroused by breasts because they've been told/taught that they should see them as sexual objects.

Oh, please. Men are aroused by women's breasts because women's breasts are naturally arousing to men. It's really that simple.

[Jonathan Dresner]

How charmingly circular and unsubstantiated.

[Mumcat]

I wonder -- in societies where women are traditionally nude above the waist, do men walk around in a constant state of sexual excitement at the sight of all those naked boobs? Or is it so common that they more or less ignore it and go about their daily business of staying alive?

I have a suspicion that it's the latter which is why I don't necessarily accept the idea that "men can't help it because that's how they're programmed." It's a matter of context.

[Anne]

We live in a culture in which both men and women have increasing difficulty distinguishing the appearance of their own flesh from the value they place on their own lives. To practice modesty is to make the individual decision to "opt out" of the game, to refuse to play by the cruel and capricious rules of our sexualized consumer culture.

Now you're saying something I can support whole-heartedly.

It's worrying to me that not only are women, in increasing numbers, developing eating disorders and other ailments directly connected to superficial cultural sexual objectification of the body, but that more and more men are developing the same problems.

The hypersexualization of our culture is a social issue that affects all of us. I wouldn't be able to support a return to "traditional sex roles" because, in my view, there's too much unpleasant baggage associated with those roles, but I'd like to see the development of a new morality that fits our new times, and our new problems.

[Xrlq]

Jonathan, if you really need someone to "substantiate" the fact that women's breasts are a turn on to men but men's breasts aren't a turn on to women, then you really need to get out more. There's a reason why Playboy sells more magazines than Playgirl.

[Phyllis]

Wow. Miss a day of Hugo and you miss a lot. Cheers to you, and all involved in the conversation for having the energy and passion to keep it up. I'm learning a lot!

[Anne]

Xrlq, You might want to examine your own post(s) for logical fallacies. A=B because B=A is a fallacy. Also? B=A is not always true in your argument.

Hugo -

I find that I continue to be annoyed by the repetition of the idea that while men are supposed to exhibit self-control, they are to have their self-control assisted by women trying not to be stimulating. I mean, on the face of it, I agree. In principle, I think keeping one's body covered what used to be called "decently" is a good idea.

The problem with this position starts with the wide-ranging variety of things that different men find stimulating. Who decides where the line is drawn?

Further, the problem with this code is that it requires a definition of the permissible and the impermissible with the unspoken assumption that a woman crossing the permissible line is potentially at fault and, as a matter, I think, of logical extrapolation, could be said to share the blame for any unpleasantness that may ensue.

(That is not a "slippery slope" argument, okay? It's a matter of public record that "she tempted me" has been used, at times successfully, by a man defending himself against assault charges.)

As has been argued in this thread, men are stimulated by those thing society trains them to be stimulated by.

There are men all over the world who can view the sight of a woman's uncovered breasts without losing control.

In this country, men are socialized to find breasts sexy. They're told, ten thousand times in a thousand different ways, that visual and tactile contact with this part of a woman's body is one of the most desirable things in life. After all of that indoctrination, it would be absurd to act surprised if men in this country are almost invariably aroused, even over-stimulated, by the sight of uncovered breasts.

You blame the breasts.

I blame the media that fetishizes the breasts.

The hypersexualization of our society is largely the result of the entertainment and, even more, the advertising industries.

Some may think that advertising and entertainment reflect culture and I'm sure there was a day when this was true, but in this era of multi-million dollar advertising campaigns specifically designed with psychological elements to direct consumers toward specific behaviors, I don't think that's true any more.

An impressionable society is being reshaped into consumer fodder. Sex sells, and you can also sell sex. Magazines, billboards, commercials, even newspaper ads are full of the idea that everything from a floor cleaner to a SUV will improve your sex life. Buy the product…and you're essentially buying sex.

(In a world where television commercials show a woman striding through a city, and confidently leading a business meeting clad only in her underwear, it is surprising that young girls extrapolate to the idea that a bikini is suitable attire for eating in a restaurant or attending class at a university?)

It cause isn't what's under our clothes or even the parts of the body not under our clothes. It's all around us. The problem is what an industry driving toward ever-greater revenues is teaching us when we're off our guard.

[Xrlq]

Anne, I'm not sure what A and B you have in mind, but if A = B, then B = A. That's what "equals" means. You can't have 2 plus 2 equal four, if four doesn't also equal 2 plus 2. Perhaps you meant to say that I was guilty of arguing something else, such as "all As are Bs, therefore all Bs are As?" If so, where?

As to industries "teaching" us, I think you've got it backwards. Industry doesn't put up sexy ad campaigns because they want to sell sex. They do it because they want to sell whatever it is that they're advertising. They use sex to sell it because it works. That it works says a lot more about society as a whole than it does about an industry that gets rich by catering to it.

[Jonathan Dresner]

Xrlq: They use sex to sell because sex is a shortcut to being persuasive or selling good products. The sex they use to sell becomes a part of the media environment, and if advertising didn't work to persuade and influence people, then there'd be a lot less advertising, wouldn't there?

And I am not arguing that women's breasts are not sexually stimulating, in today's American society, but that they are not inherently (you said "naturally" but it's the same thing, I think; feel free to split that hair at your own leisure) stimulating. You know, it seems like we need a nudist in this discussion.

Playboy sells more than Playgirl because men are permitted (even encouraged), in contemporary society, context-free (content-free?) sexuality, whereas women are more fully human. (yes, I know that's an inflammatory generalization. It's my definition, and I'm going to use it, so there.) In other words, there'd be fewer supermodels if they were required to be of good character or talented as well as (or instead of) "pretty".

For someone who knows a lot of logic, you don't use it well in practical circumstances.

[Camassia]

When I was in college I read some of Chinua Achebe's novels about life among the Igbo, an African people who traditionally wore very little clothing. Judging by his accounts, men admired women's breasts the same way men in our society might admire a woman's legs, lips, or hair -- they aren't indecent, but they aren't totally desexualized either.

I think that's a point that's kind of missing from this discussion. Any part of a person's body is potentially erotic. Genitals are obviously extra erotic so any society that covers anything covers them, but beyond that you can't divide bodies into sexual and nonsexual parts. That's true all over the world.

So to my mind "modesty" isn't defined by what parts of yourself you cover. It's whether and to what extent you're sexually advertising yourself, whether in clothing or in behavior. What that entails varies from society to society, but every society has some version of it. How you make yourself look is a form of communication, just as much as what you say.

In fact, I think I scent a somewhat neo-Gnostic assumption by some here that your body isn't "the real you," so people really shouldn't pay much attention to it. Christianity has, from its very earliest days, rejected that idea in favor of "embodiment." In that way of thinking, you are your body, which is why your body and not just your ghost will be resurrected eventually. That means taking the body seriously -- neither reducing it to a sex object nor seeing it as a "utilitarian sack of flesh," as Hugo put it.

[Hugo]

Wow. Camassia, if I gave out "huge comment of the week" awards, this week's would go to you.

[Xrlq]

Jonathan, I think our differences have less to do with logic than they do with the premises we start from. Your premise appears to be that men and women are naturally alike, they are only conditioned by Society (TM) to think they are different. Mine is that this is hogwash; men didn't need Playboy to find out that naked women were a turn on, and women didn't need centuries of quasi-Victorian pruderie to learn to be nonplussed or even turned off by men parading naked. We're just not wired the same way.