Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).
On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.
On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.
The term modesty has become a item of debate as well. Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance. There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility. The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.
One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men. There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry". Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods. Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.
The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware. It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing. Men must control their own impulses. Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative. One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected. If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?
Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator. An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome. The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing. Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.
The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate? If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?
If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?
Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly. At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting. What one believes is modest, another finds provocative. One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.
To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language. In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming. This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming. On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share. Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.
It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did. It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive. It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.
Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife. All people have responsibilities with respect to this. For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others. For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity. For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.
If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you? What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?
On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible? Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?
In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.
